Modern Day Anarchist Commenting On United States Politics

I’ve said it before that you have more in common with Peter than not. Turd is right. You’re just one of these guys that memorizes all the “ists” and “isms”. A bandwagon philosopher.

It’s easy to make assertions but without proving them you just have baseless accusations.

It sounds like you’re on Turd’s bandwagon more likely than not.

It’s not about high school politics. It’s about the substance of the debate. I’m asserting that anarchism is strongly correlated with a lack of experience in life and with the short sightedness of youth. And you’re 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 can’t accept that it’s possible to live a good life in America starting from nothing.

I mean if you know so much about economics then why don’t you have a lot of money?

You’re out of touch with reality concerning the world which you over idealize.

This whole uniformity and conformity bullshit is just propaganda to my ears.

You assume everybody has the same opportunity in life and we both know that’s bullshit so give it up already.

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?

Gonna guess what your answer is:

If I was on the island and there was dissenters I’d tell them to go find another island to inhabit. :wink:

That’s 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 don’t think we’ve 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 we’re 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? Wouldn’t 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 aren’t 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.

Most you can hope for in the US is a slab city.

I have a couple questions regarding anarchy. In another thread I saw reference to doing away with government and implementing direct democracy.

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. What stops gangs, armies etc. from forming and taking everything over forcefully?
  4. If you have direct democracy, do you not then have a democracy and not anarchism? Or does “anarchy” become a more abstract concept to allow for the democracy?
  5. Why direct democracy? What makes this any more legitimate than any other system?

Apologies if these are basic questions, I’ve never seen proper answers for them.

I’ll have to respond to this lengthy post and Turd’s later tonight.

It’s 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.

What’s really interesting is how this same liberal democracy has aligned itself with the communist Chinese and Islamic religious fanatics throughout the middle east.

That’s 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 ‘casting vote’ 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 “do not vote” 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 doesn’t 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

an insider’ shabby secret =D>

Yes, I understand that part, but how is it plausible long term and how is it implemented?

Generally speaking, I agree this is generally true. On average. It is however, not indubitable.

Lately I find myself agreeing with a lot of libertarian minarchism. It’s the closest thing to anarchism but without all the chaos most people fear that turns them away from anarchy.

The chaos most people fear because they think chaos will happen? (are you arguing that anarchism would not cause “chaos”?)

Or, the chaos most people fear, which is inevitable (as far as I can tell with my limited grasp on the subject) with anarchism?

Chaos is inevitable at this point in civilization. There is only delaying it temporarily or bringing it faster at this point.

Minarchism is one step above anarchism. It’s essentially something I think anarchists could settle for along with other freedom aspiring people. Lately I’ve been questioning a lot of my own beliefs coming to new conclusions.

Such as?

The reality if anarchism will ever come about or whether human annihilation followed by extinction will make anarchism impossible if not irrelevant.