Everyone exists first as an individual and then as a member of society, no matter what the organization is. The core principle of democracy is individuals making decisions for themselves and then casting their vote for how the society is to be ruled. The majority of individuals get to decide. The only possible anarchist is the one living outside of society alone in the forest or on an island. An anarchist ceases to be an anarchist the moment he is not alone.
So being a slave is cool, as long as the person wants it?
I asked how is it possible for me to "be my own master" and be someone's slave (by free choice) without it being a contradiction?
You just described the principles of democracy in theory.
The most basic rule if other are absent is might makes right so the most powerful individual (or group, but groups represent societies within societies) will rule over the rest.
Yes but many don't consider themselves being their own masters. They don't have the balls, right?
I meant is there any performative contradiction in me deciding to be a literal slave to a dominatrix for example while declaring that I'm my own master? What you mean by "being your own master" is being free from any constraints aka liberation theory, where complete personal liberty is the ultimate good in life. This would include the liberty to surrender my liberty too. And thus the snake eats its tail.
I don't refer to anything, I'm just coming to logical conclusions based on what you're telling me.
The point I'm getting at is that true anarchism is a performative contradiction, because some basic rules and hierarchy of authority is presupposed in any society. Now if you call some libertarian rule-based government anarchy that runs contrary to what anarchy represents. It's still people agreeing to give authority to another person or institution over themselves. This is what democracy is in theory although not in practice.
Could I come to the conclusion that being my own master is being a slave to someone?
What authority am I appealing to? I asked you about your take - you're the one making the claim.
Doesn't sound like anarchism to me, but to an idealized form of democracy that's unattainable. Anarchism literally means a form of societal organization without rulers and authorities, a free for all, where the power of government is relativized in each person (since each person is their own master, right?). Why would anyone care what the other anarchists want or think? The only rule in such a case is the threat of violence and might makes right.
How very edgy. I remember reading Nietzsche in my 20's proclaiming stuff like that.
What does being your own master entail?
So if they choose to form a court and have police, is this still an anarchy? Are you starting to get where we're leading to? This is libertarianism, not anarchy.
I'm sorry the truth seems regurgitated an trivial to you. The sky is blue sounds regurgitated too. It's still the truth. I'm not quoting JP if that's what you're alluding to. He likes to say it and he's right about it although I consider his views a toss off. He's a classic lolbert.
Cool. What happens when you get a bunch of anarchists together? How do they reconcile their different yet equally valid opinions and choices? How are disputes settled?
So anarchism is a group of people democratically voting for an authority (government)? Genius.
Dude, I get you have no life beside writing bs here. I'm a professional musician and composer so I get a lot of time to be creative irl. Cut the ad homs and empty rhetoric and engage with the arguments.
Is it? Are you not following any set of rules writing your idiocy down? Like the laws of logic and grammar? You're the one wanting to go meta - here we go.
I'm not here to be creative.
Why censor conspiracy theories if they're all made up and have no basis in reality?
Who's this based boomer?
Isn't natural selection hierarchical? How do you envision anarchist society? Law of the jungle enacted?
Is what you do.
Based professor.
The red heifer talk is a psy op. Jews can't do shit before they rebuild the temple but they have to demolish the mosque first. This has been prophesized by St. Paisios of Athos 40 years ago. This event will unleash the end-time events leading to the rule of the antichrist which will last about 3-4 years.
Yep, same level of coherence.
Retarded. Hierarchies are inevitable.
Can you demonstrate the opposite? I'd love some examples.