Brought to you by the tribe.
Or just save it by Print -> Save as PDF
Are you stupid? I addressed that here:
You are presupposing an already developed rule-based society and that's understandable because one can't even imagine what the opposite would be like apart from devolving into murderous savagery.
Sun Tzu and Nietzsche didn't live in lawless anarchical societies but in highly organized hierarchical societies. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and modern day intelligence services find ways to game the system and outsmart their opponents. You can't be a great chess player without following the rules of chess.
Wtf geopolitics has to do with anarchy? Warfare is an abstraction. We have warfare because we have societies, that are organized hierarchically the same way an individual is (you have a head, arms, body, etc). In order to get to that level of abstracted aggression we must first observe how aggression is dealt with within society on individual level. Can you defeat a stronger opponent using your cunning? Yes, you can (like King David did for example). But that means in an anarchy you'll always have to be on your guard and ready to defend yourself (or attack) because it's free for all and there's no authority that will prevent or curb aggression.
No need to apologize at all. Btw I'm Winston Smith writing from the Ministry of Truth. I think you got me mistaken for Will Smith.
The guiding principle is that we each take responsibility for ourselves. With that in mind, who is there to allow or disallow abortion? If you wish to abort, it is for you to decide.
If that's the case, who's there to allow or disallow rape and murder?
That's not a Christian line of reasoning but I see it could makes sense to pragmatic thinking people. God is the standard for everything that exists, meaning that He cannot be unconventional. He's entirely conventional but we can't know His ways with our earthly limitations. He transcends human wisdom entirely:
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”;"
It's just more satanic subversion like the #Jesus washed feet bs. They will push the fake image of cool hippy-jesus and a false gospel like they did for the last 100 years. Nothing to do with real Christianity and our true Lord.
Based. One can only imagine how ridiculous the whole mark of the beast sign must have sounded to people in the past, before digital payments and before implantable chips were a thing. Hundreds of prophesies have come to past and the rest will also come to past and people are still not convinced.
But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’
Lol, I know more about the history of revolutions than you will in your lifetime and you're coming at me with some normie slogans which is supposed to counter what I said? There were rebellions throughout history, but the revolutionary ethos, the overthrowing of monarchies, the social contract, the concept of civil rights, individualism and anarchy itself as a reactionary offshoot from the French commune are all strictly European enlightenment ideas.
Do yourself a favor and read Fire in the minds of man
It's the smart that are able to win in a rule-based society because they can outsmart the rules. In your pipe dream that's not the case and you will get shafted by the stronger guy regardless of how smart you are. You are presupposing an already developed rule-based society and that's understandable because one can't even imagine what the opposite would be like apart from devolving into murderous savagery.
Even if a tape is leaked they will say it's doctored. Once more, you just can't prove something that's outside of the paradigm and politicians raping children for blackmail is outside of the normie paradigm for sure.
Everyone in position of power has skeletons, that's the point of the whole blackmail op. Bernie plays out his part like a good puppet. He's controlled opposition to Israel.
What about the Krugman guy? He's named too but why?
I understand you want to steer the argument towards "when do we just pull out our guns and shoot each other?" but we don't, because that's degeneracy, not anarchy.
On the contrary. I'm steering the argument towards the most natural thing for a group of people to do - they disagree on things. I'm asking you how do you resolve disputes in an egalitarian system where everyone is his own authority no opinion is more valid than the other? If convincing people worked the way you said it did, we would live in perfect harmony - anarchy or whatever system you pick.
I applaud your pragmaticism but it's naive and things get extremely complicated irl when dealing with people. If I hold one worldview and you hold another there's hardly any convincing that's possible. I'll readily give you an example with believers in God and atheists, I bet you know how this debate goes and how pointless it gets.
True anarchy is not a state of being, it's an ideal to strive for. Of course people are going to end up disagreeing, but then the educated and idealistic rationality and reason of the community needs to stand together, and pull towards the ideal, not devolve into factions fighting over right and wrong. Resolve conflicts with debate, and realize we can't ever agree on everything, but so long as we agree on something, we have grounds for working together.
Does everyone in the anarchy hold that to be true? Now you're talking of the community exercising its will on the minority who's not on board and thus becoming an authority. As in majority rule, as in a democracy. What happens when you have a black or white issue like say should abortion be allowed? Many people are willing to die on that hill so how would we get a compromise?
However in recent years all the immigrant gangsters have been playing shoot-em-up and ruining things for everyone (go figure), and so the community came together and decided - by unanimous vote - to collaborate with the authorities to eliminate the trade altogether.
Who would've taught that having no authority to curb crime and violence would lead to criminally minded people abusing that lack of control? And they had to hold a democratic vote (what would happen if it wasn't unanimous?) to bring in such an authority into their anarchy. That's exactly my point.
That's just preposterous. As if the modern use of the word distorts it. The etymology of consent. Recorded in Middle English since circa 1225, borrowed from Old French consentir, from Latin cōnsentīre, present active infinitive of cōnsentiō (“to agree; to assent, consent”), itself from com- (“with”) + sentiō (“to feel”)
As if people in the Middle ages consented to being governed. Come on, man (in JB's voice). It's a relatively new concept in the context we're talking about - since about the time the US were established. And yes, I believe secular humanism and classical liberalism are faulty to begin with and logically lead to the cucked corporate pseudo-democracy we live in today.
I think that's a personal problem believing words have feelings to them instead of explicit meanings. If you want to know where those feelings are coming from you only need to look in the mirror. I suppose someone whose relied upon the illusory safety the government provides would have trouble seeing the benefits of being in control of your own life. We are looking at it from vastly different perspectives. I'm looking at it as a soldier and you are looking at it as a threat to the comfortable bubble you've resided in your entire life.
I don't believe words have feelings to them, you're strawmaning me. I was rather concrete in pointing the meaning of the word used in political discourse. You also falsely assume that because I'm tearing down your pipe dream of anarchist society (outside of being reactionary in another form of society), I'm somehow in favor of democracy when both come from the same revolutionary enlightenment ethos. It's a false dialectic - what I'm trying to get across to you is by embracing anarchism you're no better than the normie libtards and lolberts. I'm sorry your system doesn't work in practice. At least some semblance of democracy is being enacted all over the world regardless of how corrupted and demented the system is.
All your sophistry aside, the problem still stands - you can't appeal to "muh consent" in a society of ubermensch where everyone does what they want because someone stronger will come to you and he will beat you up, steal your stuff and rape you without asking for your consent, just because he can (who's gonna stop him?) and he feels like it.
What is coming? What are they preparing for that's not long-planned and caused by them?
They are taking a piss at this point. Never been faker, never been gayer.
Anarchy is an ideology that postulates no government is legitimate nor does its authority derive from a legitimate source if that government does not have consent of the governed. Which can be revoked at any time by the governed, those the government rely upon to legitimize their authority.
That's literally what democracy looks like on paper. The governed give their consent by voting for the people who govern. It can be revoked by voting against those people and if they don't comply, the voters can get their arms and drag them out by force. What does anarchy bring to the table except sounding cool to teenagers groing through their rebel phase and 20-something edgelords who red a bit of Nietzsche and nihilist degenerates like Bakunin and Proudhon (I bet 99.99% of self-proclaimed anarchists have never heard of those guys).
Besides I have a strong dislike for the word consent these days. It has strong SJW soycuck undertones. It sounds weak and effeminate like the feminized culture it comes from - hardly any ubermensch vibes to it. What do people, who have power over you care if you consent or not? No one will ask you for consent in an anarchy, are you kidding me? This is the same lolbert bs like the non-aggression principle. Why should I care for your principle in a society where no rules are in place?
I know about it.
The open trade of cannabis was shut down April 17, 2024, as a collaborative effort with police and the majority inhabitants of Christania. Pusher street's cobblestone road was physically removed, and a new apartment complex is expected to be built there.
So the adults had to step in. That's a degenerate drug and crime ridden ghetto, not an anarchy. You can find lots of similar "freetowns" in the third world shitholes.
What happens when we don't agree on something important for both of us?
I bet I can, this statement is false.
That's a paradox. Laws of logic still applied for you to construct it and imply identity (this) and contradiction (the actual paradox).
Think of the laws of logic as the computer code your mind is coded in. Getting rid of them is like cutting off the branch you're sitting on. All cohesion of the world will collapse, it will make the world impossible. We can't even imagine a world where the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction is not in place.
No, I don't do rights. You have "rights" until they are taken away by whoever gave them to you. I'm describing how society functions. It's an "is" claim not an "ought" claim. People organize in such and such fashion and every single society gives rise to hierarchies and authorities naturally. Anarchism as societal organization is a pipe dream. As I said, you can only be an anarchist by yourself (which is meaningless because anarchism presupposes you live in society).
I'm sure you can - logic is no feat for you, dear ubermensch. Thousands of years of philosophy and rational thought don't stand a chance against you.
You just used the laws of logic to construct that statement. It's like proving 2+2 isn't 4.
Ignorance is bliss, but you're still young and there's hope.
I'm a sheep because I point out your sophist bullcrap, right.
You absolutely can, there may be consequences but if no one sees you or no one calls the police you could do so unmolested. A stop sign holds no power.
Being able to do something and being free (like having a right) to do something are different things. That's like saying you're free to kill and rape, but there will be consequences. Or even better and more relevant - "you're free not to get the covid gene-shot, but there will be consequences, chud". Would you call that freedom?
I wonder to what extend you live up to your philosophy irl? Are you a ubermensch lone wolf sigma male? Are you the master of your destiny? Are you completely independent? Do you work for yourself or for someone else?
This is some Adam Green level of idiocy here. Are you aware jews don't like Christians and outright hate Jesus? Why would they paint Christians favorably and lie about their persecution? But of course Dr CANDIDA Moss is not one of those falsifying history, right?
Guess who's the main opponent to the whole LGBT libtard agenda and who's the main antagonist sticking to traditional values and (based) bigotry according to the NWO stooges? Why is the libtard worldview wrong according to you when it's based on the same secular humanist ideas you'd agree with?