A Case for Anarchism
(youtu.be)
Comments (58)
sorted by:
This is essentially what happens. Anarchism leads to tribalism which leads to states. The largest gangster wins against smaller gangsters. His point about disputing this with digital technologies is really interesting though. Something there for sure
I don't understand the question. If someone decides to start a dictatorship whose responsibility is it to stop them? Whoever chooses to
There are no responsibilities in an anarchy - just people doing what they will, right? What he's asking is who can stop an anarchy from logically turning into a tyranny because the strongest naturally asserts themselves and assume power?
It's completely dependent on what the individuals decide, if they believe they have a responsibility then they are responsible. I believe the idea that the strongest naturally asserts themselves a false premise, when it comes to violence It's the person unencumbered by morality that wins. That's why a lot of CEOs are psychopathic and sociopathic. It's the smartest that wins, it's the person that understands violence on a fundamental level not the strongest. I'd use Russia as an example Putin is not the strongest he's just willing to do what his competition will not. There's a difference between strength and ruthlessness.
So anarchy is whatever the individuals in the society choose it to be? Ok, then I'll make the case individuals in our society have made the choice (and affirm that choice every day) to have the form of government we live under.
It doesn't matter whether it's the smartest or the physically strongest that asserts their will on the rest - it's still will to power and the rest is means to an end. If authoritarian government is not antithetical to your particular definition of anarchy, then what's the argument about?
No anarchy is whatever the individual decides it to be
We've been at this. Society is made up by individuals and individuals live in a society. Absent some form of government and authority, what guarantees one individual's wants and needs will be respected by the other individuals? If we both live in an anarchy why shouldn't I steal your stuff because I decided I like it and it's fair that I should own it?
Because I know society doesn't protect the individual, the individual protects the individual. Superior firepower supercedes whatever government or society one finds oneself in. You realize in America police have no duty to protect you right? Sauce
So you are talking about a hypothetical dictatorship where exactly? In our heavily armed society? What kind of force are you talking about in the 21st century? Superior firepower? You understand modern militaries have proven themselves ineffective in asymmetrical warfare?
You just described the US military, genius 🤣 That's what a volunteer army looks like. You are way in the weeds trying to create a false premise of some hypothetical dictatorship fighting anarchists?
I can tell you've never been in the military. It's not the generals or the pentagon that run modern militaries, it's the non commissioned officer Corp. What countries did the US military "assume governance" over? Sound like a retard anti anarchy shill to me
Having thought about it you are questioning with a false premise that has nothing to do with anarchy. The same could be asked of any system against a "warlord" Do you think being a group of Anarchists would preclude them from forming a collective defense or military?
a) Those who suggest anarchism gain permission from those consenting to be anarchists to enforce.
b) Question implies ones consent to suggested progressivism (quest towards outcome); hence now waiting for suggested answers from another.
Those who question others are permitting answers to be enforced.
Nature isn't a quest towards outcome; but each ones resistance (life) within origin (inception towards death) as temporary problem within ongoing solution.
What Malice does not state here as an example but in my opinion is probably the best example is the 400 year reign of the Dutch East India Company. While corporatism is not identical to anarchism its ostensibly similar right to draw a parallel.
Interesting parallel
So a corporate NWO is what we should root for? Also a corporation is hierarchical and rule-based by definition.
Anarchism isn't "anti rules".
Boring jew talking to unfunny braggart jew? I ain't clicking that shit, nigger.
Sounds like fear
Nope. Just good old healthy European-blooded disgust. Keep poking the bear, Schlomo.
Fear out of weakness
Says the tribe that censors anyone who doesn't like them. Fuck off, kike.
Fuck, you aren't that bright are you?
Good stuff.
a) AN (without) ARKHON (ruler)
b) A suggested -ism tempts ones consent to follow a ruler.
c) 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' Credits Song...
The conspiracy is how popular culture has made the idea of Anarchism a taboo subject in America. Falsely equivocating anarchy with total chaos and death.
What came first...theism; idealism or anarchism?
a) How does one restrict FREE will of choice?
b) What if "forbid" implies ones free will of choice to bet forwards aka ones desire to request from another?