top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 4 months ago (33 children)

...yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else's control over their own lives.

The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else's right not to get punched.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (24 children)

    I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

    how do you "democratically" create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what's going to happen to people who disagree with those "democratically created laws"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don't want to participate in the democracy they already have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn't. There are other options to solve the issue too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can't possibly apply to people who didn't consent to it.

    so it's no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.

    it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    I'm not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I'm a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    👆

    that's a very petit understanding of anarchism

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I'm pretty comfortable in the assumption that they don't give a fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    Hierarchists oftentimes say that we need the machine to ensure that we are provided for. In this sense I like to think of the machine as a mother. The motherly machine nurtures us. Gives us hospitals, passports, car infrastructure, gives us internet, gives us supermarkets.

    But she can't nurture us without vessels which pumps force of life to her. The one raising and maintaining the vessels is the fatherly machine.

    Our father is efficient, and does whatever he needs to do to accomplish this. He deathen forests to set up farms. He penetrates the ground for metals, he exploits labour to the degree that it is possible, fully if possible. He grabs around that which he can, from the very biggest, to the very smallest. He sucks up life from the ocean. And penetrates the crust of Gaja to vessel oil.

    The issue here is that in fern for the machine to preserve itself, it needs people to look away from the fatherly machine, because then it can get away with more providing. This is easy for the machine, because all the machine has to do is to claim responsibility for being non-exploitative. It is moving responsibility away from people towards itself.

    The lokening is therefore to take back responsibility.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    This sounds like anarcho-primitivism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I like to use the term democratic confederalist or demconf in short, but I agree with anarcho-primitivism/indigenism in the sense that we should live with nature, not against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    No government can give you freedom🏴🚩

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    No Masters, No Slaves.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    What's the difference between this and libertarianism?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    If I am not mistaken, Initially anarchism was called libertarianism, but later libertarianism was co-opted by American pro-market believers and now refers to anarcho-capitalists.

    As for why an-caps are not real anarchists you can read an in depth explanation here. But briefly it is just an oxymoron. Anarchists believe in a world without hierarchies and capitalism is a system defined by the existence of two classes of people(capitalists and working people) and their relationship to the means of production. So there is an inherently hierarchical relationship within capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • But who will tell me what to do!?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›