Do philosophy like what? Like how you do it? Youâre just a trendy that barks and follows whatever fad that is presented to you. You like many others have an inability to construct an original thought of their own. You do not impress me.
Life is always worthwhile. I donât value death unless it is death of enemies. Some people really do need to die as their existence poses a threat to a majority of people.
I donât believe in righteousness. The great thing about anarchism is that you can always leave at anytime and go somewhere else creating your own society or community. Participation isnât mandatory as it is a choice.
Iâve said it before that you have more in common with Peter than not. Turd is right. Youâre just one of these guys that memorizes all the âistsâ and âismsâ. A bandwagon philosopher.
Itâs not about high school politics. Itâs about the substance of the debate. Iâm asserting that anarchism is strongly correlated with a lack of experience in life and with the short sightedness of youth. And youâre calling me a yuppie or something. Which is retarded. I grew up in the hood and no one gave me shit. You love to fantasize that I have some trust fund of something because you canât accept that itâs possible to live a good life in America starting from nothing.
So you can gave forced conscription and desertion from that conscription in your theory, and someone living in absolute 100% urban areas like the Maldives can up and leave and establish their own society somewhere else on the island?
So what, you would say take over the soccer field or some shit?
Thatâs my point, your not calculating spacial issues when deciding when new colonies/polis/tribal entities should emerge, or the inability to reasonably find new land.
You donât think weâve had this issue since Roman Times? Tribes kept running out of food, and overpopulation causer them to do mass migrations, or war with one another. End results often were mass raids on the Romans, and 9 times out of 10 lead to mass enslavement or genocide cause the Romans weâre more rational, had advanced strategic leaders in their administration (strategikos), and the ability to fall back on professional armies, logistic infrastructure, superior training, organization, tactics, and education. Best if all, people were paid, culled from taxes and market manipulation.
One small tiny state playing by those rules pulled off systematic destruction of all these other tribes.
Do you really expect everyone to play along with your ideas? Wouldnât even a very small, Caribbean state just completely annihilate and destroy your system?
Why would other states play along with your system, if all the land is already prioritize and mapped out? You may feel they arenât using it right, but they will disagree, and the countries with the most rural land- US, China, Russia, coincidentally have the strongest military, and federal prioritization of land, and long experience in evicting and squashing separatists.
I have a couple questions regarding anarchy. In another thread I saw reference to doing away with government and implementing direct democracy.
How does direct democracy get implemented if there is no government? Does this require that everyone is on board with anarchism/direct democracy before the government is done away with? If not, how is the direct democracy implemented?
By direct democracy do you mean mob rule? If so, does that just mean that if a group is consistently voted against that their recourse is to just splinter off/be exiled and try to start their own group, or perish trying?
What stops gangs, armies etc. from forming and taking everything over forcefully?
If you have direct democracy, do you not then have a democracy and not anarchism? Or does âanarchyâ become a more abstract concept to allow for the democracy?
Why direct democracy? What makes this any more legitimate than any other system?
Apologies if these are basic questions, Iâve never seen proper answers for them.
Itâs interesting how Joe Biden at a Davos conference highlighted how liberal democracy is in a crisis throughout the west because of things like Brexit and Donald Trump.
Whatâs really interesting is how this same liberal democracy has aligned itself with the communist Chinese and Islamic religious fanatics throughout the middle east.
Thatâs because this liberal democracy he speaks of is really state sponsored socialism which really does align itself with Marxism and communism. I think a new term for it should be liberal Marxist (communist) democratic socialism.
The goal of this liberal Marxist (communist) democratic socialism is to create a singular liberal Marxist democratic world order. This has always been its plan and goal all along.
The premise of âcasting voteâ is already flawed. There is a great danger if allowing people, who know little about the issues, to vote. This leads to a dumbed down bottom in the hands of a mob rule, what is happening today. So the best is âdo not voteâ unless it is for your direct community/county and know about people a lot.
All other questions cannot even find the beginning of answer as long as this is not deeply comprehended. And actually the ancient greeks such as plato, aristole and socrates had already understood this pretty well. So why did it go so wrong, indeed?
My guess is that 2000+ years of political sciences must be erased. Ready for that?
Anarchy basically doesnât no rules but NO rulers.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato
Lately I find myself agreeing with a lot of libertarian minarchism. Itâs the closest thing to anarchism but without all the chaos most people fear that turns them away from anarchy.