What is Anarchy?

[Antipathy]

In an anarchic system, things would quickly revert to despotism, as the strong rule the weak. We'd have to rebuild everything from scratch. But this philosophy is just the fever dream of an autist who bought a fake deagle and thinks he's hot shit, not realizing he'd be the absolute bottom of the system he so reveres.

Or, to put it simply: faggot, you're the first person who goes in the gas chamber, so stop voting for Hitler.

 

[Kingu Cinnamon]

To me, anarchy is the most fragile system there is. All it takes is for one fucker to decide "hey I have weapons and armor, you don't, do the work I don't want to do or else" and boom, hierarchy based on a warrior class, anarchy over.

 

[BoomTune]

okay...
what would stop the person who hires the cops having influence over them? because if one person can amass enough wealth to pay for their own police force and therefore influence them, you basically have feudalism.

edit:
Moreover, how do you stop corruption and bribery in a police force purely motivated by payment (who watches the watchmen?). How do you pay them if there is no central government to create and control currency? Go back to a purely trading based system?

I really had to give this one some thought.

About the first question:
If a private company wants a town or suburb to “Chip-in” as well, then there needs to be a guarantee that none of them will be singled out. The reason why it would concern other people whether some stranger is getting screwed over by the wealthier patrons, is because it could also happen to them.

Note: I can't reply too readily, or that loli will get angry.

 

[Kingu Cinnamon]

I really had to give this one some thought.

About the first question:
If a private company wants a town or suburb to “Chip-in” as well, then there needs to be a guarantee that none of them will be singled out. The reason why it would concern other people whether some stranger is getting screwed over by the wealthier patrons, is because it could also happen to them.

Note: I can't reply too readily, or that loli will get angry.
View attachment 836787

Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said, but why would the wealthier patrons fear the same repercussions as the poor if they control the livelihoods of the law enforcement?

 

[Easterling]

I find it very difficult to take you seriously because you repeatedly post shitty memes and reaction gifs, If your actually taking your edgy and unrealistic ideology seriously then at least try to present it seriously. Also admitting that your a sperg on discord makes you a double faggot.

 

[Antipathy]

I really had to give this one some thought.

About the first question:
If a private company wants a town or suburb to “Chip-in” as well, then there needs to be a guarantee that none of them will be singled out. The reason why it would concern other people whether some stranger is getting screwed over by the wealthier patrons, is because it could also happen to them.

Note: I can't reply too readily, or that loli will get angry.
View attachment 836787

LOLI FAGS BELONG IN BODY BAGS.
That is all, pedo. If you want to be lolsoedgy and political, advocate for something edgier than Baby's First Naive Ideology. Advocate for like, a government based on school shootings or rape or whatever. Otherwise go fuck yourself, you're sperging out. We're not laughing with you, we are laughing at you.

 

[MZ 052]

only 1% of the people who advocate for anarchy would thrive within it
99% are LARPing spastics who would probably end up living til 25 wheezing and spluttering from TB in the vast and sprawling corporate turnip farms in the neo-feudal anarchist utopia they imagine they'd master thanks to their Fallout: New Vegas expertise

 

[BoingoTango]

What is Anarchy? A jugga-lugga-loca-rony.

 

[Webby's Boyfriend]

I'd hit on that!

 

[neverendingmidi]

As I said before, there can also be different percentages of anarchy. The reason for that, in a situation where two or more people (Or groups) must work together to complete a task, but they have a different ways of doing it, one of them must step down.

Anarchy is widely misunderstood by those who were born and raised in a state-controlled society.

View attachment 836571

I think this is my favorite response. How do you decide who steps down? If you have two masons arguing with 30 postmodern artists about how to build a wall, who wins? If it's the masons, congrats, you are creating hierachies based on skills, which will quickly develop power due to the knowledge. If it's the artists, congrats you have mob rule and really, really shitty building that will collapse soon. And likely the masons will leave and start their own area and build where they are in charge, and if you try to force them back to the original settlement, congrats you have tyranny.

 

[BoomTune]

To me, anarchy is the most fragile system there is. All it takes is for one fucker to decide "hey I have weapons and armor, you don't, do the work I don't want to do or else" and boom, hierarchy based on a warrior class, anarchy over.

That's why it's essential to have an armed population.

 

[Webby's Boyfriend]

What kind of retarded logic is behind that reasoning?

 

[Kingu Cinnamon]

That's why it's essential to have an armed population.

View attachment 836790

View attachment 837152

But there will be a large number of people who are wont be armed for a multitude of reasons. What do you do then? just shrug and go "well you should have had a gun"

 

[Positron]

Anarchy, in it's simplest form, is being able to choose where your money goes

In other words, Anarchy is when Libertarianism raided through the Hot Topic discount rack.

 

[BoomTune]

But there will be a large number of people who are wont be armed for a multitude of reasons. What do you do then? just shrug and go "well you should have had a gun"

There's a limit to how much I can think for you, especially without sounding insulting.

• If some people don't have guns, how will they protect themselves?

A. That's why we have a community watch. Remember the video? Mind you, it's important that the population as a whole has significantly more fire-power than their security force.

I do my best to not repeat what's already been written, so I expect you to look at everything I posted so far before commenting. If people won't do that, then no further argument is to be made.

I think this is my favorite response. How do you decide who steps down? If you have two masons arguing with 30 postmodern artists about how to build a wall, who wins? If it's the masons, congrats, you are creating hierachies based on skills, which will quickly develop power due to the knowledge. If it's the artists, congrats you have mob rule and really, really shitty building that will collapse soon. And likely the masons will leave and start their own area and build where they are in charge, and if you try to force them back to the original settlement, congrats you have tyranny.

Actually, you have a good point on why we need leaders who can listen to both sides and make a final decision. A court judge is one such example of this. Remember I said that there are different percentages of Anarchy.

In case you missed it in the OP, a justice system is needed to hold people accountable for their actions. So that instead of Oligarchy (Mob Rule: When a percentage of the population rules through the use of bulling), we have due process or some form of reconciliation.

It's for this reason that people will willingly pay for court expenses (The payment for hiring a judge, jury, ect) and if they aren't happy with the turnout then they either do something to fix it, or people won't support it. I will once again reiterate that an anarchic society is based around the idea that people choose what they spend their money on instead of Government doing for them.

If you want a more detailed explanation on how these court processes could work, its a bit long. But here it is.

The following is designed to maximize transparency and minimize corruption.
Firstly, the community needs to elect someone whom they trust to oversee the progress of the individual(s) who select members of the community that have no biased connection to the defendant or separate parties. A few of these individuals are replaced after each court-case, to keep them from consolidating power.

People can refuse to pay for a court-case, whether it's because they don't agree on their selection of a judge, the results of the previous court-case, or for any other reason. The court organizers select candidates that the community will vote upon to be the judge. New applicants need to be quizzed by the organizers and previous acting judges. The judge will present his verdict to the jury first, which may include a form of punishment and giving reasons for their decision.

But if a certain percentage of the jury disagree (Say 33%), then the judge will need to alter his sentencing and present it to them again. If the judge does not alter their verdict, then it's up to those who arranged the court session and the trusted individual to inform all those who paid for it.

If those who paid for the court disagree on the sentencing, then there may be a re-trial if there's enough demand for it (33%), when people can afford it.

However, this would be a rather expensive procedure, so it should only be used for more severe offensives. Alternatively, groups that can reconcile with multiple parties will be needed.

• Workers Solidarity Movement (Old site): Thinking about Anarchism - Crime

An example of punishment would be the loss of certain benefits, such as being banned from a paintball club for a period of time, if you used your paint-gun on someone.

Or, if someone drove their car over another's garden, wreaking it but refusing to pay for the damages, then instead of harassing the driver with the help of their friends, it would be more effective if they worked together to repair the damages.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Anarchy? It's when everyone just wants to be free!

 

[neverendingmidi]

In case you missed it in the OP, a justice system is needed to hold people accountable for their actions. So that instead of Oligarchy (Mob Rule: When a percentage of the population rules through the use of bulling), we have due process or some form of reconciliation.

It's for this reason that people will willingly pay for court expenses (The payment for hiring a judge, jury, ect) and if they aren't happy with the turnout then they either do something to fix it, or people won't support it. I will once again reiterate that an anarchic society is based around the idea that people choose what they spend their money on instead of Government doing for them.

So in other words, A FORM OF FUCKING GOVERNMENT YOU BOOB!

And apparently it will be run by whoever has enough money to pay off the judge and jury. Literally. Or by forcing everybody to support it, which is the exact same thing as taxes. Oh, but if people don't like the outcome they won't support it... So I guess nobody will bother with the cost of court expenses, they'll just OK Corral it and whoever lives is in the right.

This idea that everybody will somehow just decide en masse to work together is proof that someone has never worked in a group environment before. You can't get 20 people to agree on pizza toppings, let alone how to build a sewer system/housing/distribution of food.

 

[Kingu Cinnamon]

OP let me purpose a hypothetical:

There is a village called "Village A". Village A has a large variety of jobs and roles from carpenters and masons to hunter-warriors to farmers. Most of the food that village A gets is from Farming. The farming is hard and grueling work, but it provides more than enough food

Nearby is "Village B". Village B is mostly made of hunter-warriors and farmers. Village B has had a bad harvest and is running out of food.

Village B attacks Village A as they are desperate for food. Village A wins the battle. Village A goes to Village B and Village B surrenders.

Now, village B will definitely starve as they have lost their hunter-warriors and potentially some of their farmers. How do you stop Village A forcing the remaining Village B members into either a serf position in their society or even as slaves?

 

[neverendingmidi]

OP let me purpose a hypothetical:

There is a village called "Village A". Village A has a large variety of jobs and roles from carpenters and masons to hunter-warriors to farmers. Most of the food that village A gets is from Farming. The farming is hard and grueling work, but it provides more than enough food

Nearby is "Village B". Village B is mostly made of hunter-warriors and farmers. Village B has had a bad harvest and is running out of food.

Village B attacks Village A as they are desperate for food. Village A wins the battle. Village A goes to Village B and Village B surrenders.

Now, village B will definitely starve as they have lost their hunter-warriors and potentially some of their farmers. How do you stop Village A forcing the remaining Village B members into either a serf position in their society or even as slaves?

This is the thing, he seems to be under the impression that a 400,000 person (hah, like government is that small) bureaucracy just suddenly happened out of the blue. When any government just starts as a leader people decide to follow who then creates a power base around them.

Whether it's the tiny village who has the leader that goes out to trade with the next village over, or the conqueror who comes in and takes over both villages, and all the rest of the lands surrounding them, it all starts with a leader.

 

[Kingu Cinnamon]

This is the thing, he seems to be under the impression that a 400,000 person (hah, like government is that small) bureaucracy just suddenly happened out of the blue. When any government just starts as a leader people decide to follow who then creates a power base around them.

Whether it's the tiny village who has the leader that goes out to trade with the next village over, or the conqueror who comes in and takes over both villages, and all the rest of the lands surrounding them, it all starts with a leader.

Exactly. A really dumbed down version of history would be:
Tribal (what OP seems to be advocating for) -> Feudalism/Imperial -> Modern governments. Obviously, this is the brainlet version of history, but why would history just not repeat itself?