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?
It's truly a laughing/crying matter - you just told me being a slave is good as long one wills it. Meanwhile you berate the general public for being sheeple and slaves to the man. What if they consent to that situation? What if they welcome and love their slavery? It should be cool under your anarchist ethics.
So the three laws of logic are social convention and not universal and objective? Can we suspend them or maybe change them a bit? Everything you say is based on those laws. You can't form a sentence or a coherent thought without appealing to them.
That's preposterous. Did your neighbors decide what you were going to wear today?
In a way, yes. The society I live in decided (mailman voted on it) that I can't go in public with my dick hanging out.
But even if I grant you that we are completely free to make personal choices in cases where others are not directly affected (like choosing to eat oranges over bananas) that's not the case when there's disagreement over things that concern people, other than the individual. For example, if you decide you're free to go naked in public I'll find a way to stop you by force. So you're not free to do so.
Nietzsche wasn't an anarchist though. He was reactionary against the ruling system of the day, true, but his elitism and ubermensch mentality (slave master morality he took from Hegel) would never tolerate lack of authority. He was a proponent of Plato's or Hegel's statism (rule of a technocratic elite or a wise leader) which materialized into the totalitarian systems of the 20th century.
I rest my case.
How do you reconcile the six gorillion figure?
Did you even read my comment? I said the Holocaust is a hoax.
That's not the claim. Camps were mostly in Poland and they brought the jews there from many countries. The Holocaust is still fake but this is stupid.
But then I stop being my own master.
Can you demonstrate the opposite? I'd love some examples.
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?
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.