You must log in or register to comment.
Without rulers, not without rules ;)
They’re being a ruler is the joke
That’s why you don’t follow grammar rules
Yeah but we can’t use it; it’s why lots of anarchists like wh40k but none of us can play it.
Just be Orks, its the closest to what a freshly developed anarchy would be… Power vacuum, warlords, etc
Jesus you can’t even take me joking about myself, hierarchalists are so intensely actively too fragile and vicious to be any fun.
Nothing I said is wrong.
Orks are lots of fun
anarchy =/= anarchism
Who enforces the rules if they exist? There is a difference between ruler and enforcer. The fact I have to point this out is sad.
The game itself only exists while its rules are being followed. They don’t need to be externally enforced, the collective agreement to play the game implies agreeing to its rules.
That is so fucking stupid when talking about laws… Murder doesn’t magically become legal just because someone actually did it…
in the game of society, participating in society means you agree to the current “rules” of the “game” (laws). And one of those rules is murder -> jail
Yeah one is a person, the other is a boot of that person
The fact you still do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic. Anarchy is literally beyond your comprehension.
Rules HAVE to exist. In some form. They HAVE to be enforced in some form. If you assume any enforcer is a boot of a “ruler”, you are literally missing the entire point.
Still dont? I just got here you dweeb
Yet you’re willing to mouth off with ignorance despite, “just getting here”. Fucking pathetic. Do better.
Cringe, honestly dude all your comments tell me you’re 14. I just joined the thread with one comment and you start hurling insults. Actually child like behavior.
You literally said anarchism is beyond my comprehension despite it being one of the hardest to define political terminologies. YOU don’t even know what it means because it means 100 different things to 100 different grouos of people
One day you’ll get a 2 in front of your age and feel embarrassed about how fucking idiotic you make yourself look all the time.
No I think you and most anarchists are.
The moment you create rules and create enforcers those enforcers become the rulers.
If they have the power to enforce rules then they have higher authority and therefore status.
Don’t get me wrong I love the concept. The problem is the concept completely ignores that humans naturally develop hierarchy. We won’t deliberately pick the roles they’ll just naturally develop over time.
And theres no way to counterbalance or fix or even mitigateany of this, i know because i just thought about it for almost an entire half of a second!
Obviously theres no way to do maintenance or draw someone back in from shitty behavior other than shooting them. Obviously theres no way to get someone to chill out other than shooting them. There are no human behaviors; ingrained or learned, that could possibly fix any of this or serve as levelling mechanisms.
Unfortunately, we can’t stop things that ‘happen naturally’ and so we shouldn’t try, and that’s why I’m against the criminalization of murder and rape, and honestly pretty eager to die of cancer.
so therefore we must have massive globe spanning potentially apocalyptic decades long pissing matches and everything must be grinding the weak into dust and delusional assholes totally disconnected from any material concern making the worst possible decisions must make every decision for everyone, even if it literally ends all life by ruining earth.
Enforcers only become rulers when they’re given both immunity and the ability to make shit up.
The fact you fundamentally do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic.
If you like the concept, then maybe understand how it’s actually supposed to function. Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist. How do you do that fairly? Yes, nature has tendencies, which is why humans create rules and enforcers to resist natural tendencies.
Humans are supposed to be GREATER than “dumb animals”, yet all I ever hear is people whining about how it it’s unnatural… NO SHIT!! That’s the entire point!!
In nature, the strong eat the weak, the end. Game over. We need to create rules and enforcers to make a better environment than is natural. Creating rules requires at least a temporary “ruler” (that doesn’t ‘have’ to be a single person). If you claim ANY ruler is ALWAYS bad, you are quite literally forgetting how not-nature works in its entirety.
Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution
Rules don’t have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.
Your conception of “natural tendencies” and “the strong eat the weak” smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.
You’re wrong, plain and simple
How do you keep the enforcers from becoming the rulers? Who enforces the enforcers? Other enforcers? What’s to stop them from banding together just like cops do now? Eliminating hierarchy requires many other conditions be met to not just turn into authoritarianism or something similar.
Look at it from an information theory (applied to organization it’s called systems theory, cybernetics, or scientific management) perspective: when you put one guy in charge of too much stuff (and let’s face it; its usually gonna be a guy, because misogyny ud a feature not a bug of these systems), you have to compress all the data coming to him, and all the orders will be based on increasingly shitty abstracted models as you try to make him in charge of more stuff. Even if that guy is the absolute best, he literally cannot have good information, and the more fine grained his control, basically the more its just a crap shoot.
So yes. Centralized authority is bad, and it can be proven with math. You can try to hedge it, you can try to optimize it, but its got a fundamental flaw, not just from a moral perspective, but a mathematical one. Please don’t make me look up the actual numbers; I’m on mobile.
Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist.
Yes, that’s the fundamental contradiction of anarchism. Rules need rulers.
Oh my god dude books have been written about this stuff, youre not actually asking a question; youre trying to excuse tyranny by saying theres no other option.
I’m not excusing tyrrany by simply saying anarchy is not when zero authority. Fucking grow up.
fucking grow up
No thanks.
how can an enforcer not become a ruler?
By not having immunity from equitable rules and by not having the ability to just make shit up and arrest people for it?
This isn’t rocket science. Enforcers CAN be subject to rules too, regardless how much US police are not.
That’s delusionally… Both optimistic and pessimistic at the same time?
It’s only delusional if you assume what kind of enforcer I would approve of.
But you don’t really get to choose. That’s kind of the point.
Then who enforces the rules
Everyone.
As opposed to disciplinary action carried out by a central authority, rule breakers just get slapped by every community member in a revolving door fashion.
Are there criminal records? Are they kept on decentralised ledgers like crypto?
You use the old ladies on the balconies. They see everything.
Or whatever means you wanna do, there’s no hard and fast rule on how the system is structured - just that hierarchies be limited and only exist as long as necessary, and authority remain as evenly distributed throughout the community as possible.
Damn, this is so me
How to be anarchist:
Step 1: follow the rules we all agree upon.
Step 2: don’t play (cohabitate) with people who refuse to follow the agreed upon rules.
Step 3: enjoy peaceful game (life) with people who don’t shit on their own activities just to win.
Step 1: follow the rules we all agree upon.
You’d be surprised at how difficult it is to find rules we can all agree on.
Satire misused.
Wdym
Satire is primarily meant to deflate the power of those that don’t deserve it, and more generally in comedy, you punch up, not down.
