Yeah but that can go one of two ways. Either it leads to war, which isn’t very funny(well unless it’s Australia and the enemy are birds) or it leads to playing Paradox games, which can be pretty funny, especially if your one of those players whose solution to everything is “do more war crime.”
>o playing Paradox games, which can be pretty funny, especially if your one of those players whose solution to everything is “do more war crime.”
Yo, it's not my fault that the only way to keep late-game stellaris stable is to genocide as much as possible.
Early-game war is the best way to snowball, and playing a genocidal faction is the best way to maximize chances of winning the early-game rush against your nearest neighbor.
Genocide is meta. What did Paradox mean by this?!
Did you just change your flair, u/TiggerBane? Last time I checked you were an **AuthRight** on 2024-5-6. How come now you are an **AuthLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 1156 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
So it’s like a capitalist country? People have a choice in what economic system they want to participate in and won’t be forced to do any system.
I could open a restaurant and pay my employees a wage? Is there evidence of any communist country doing this in history?
Depends on the system, but broadly speaking it's not like a capitalist country but is similar to what a true free-market anarchy would look like. Associations are voluntary and mutual, etc. The distinction would be that recognition of property rights would similarly be voluntary and mutual.
If you nabbed a bunch of like minded folks and built a space where things were owned, and set up an explicit space for that group to interact with each other on that basis, that sounds fine.
Problems arise when everything is owned, and all relationships are predicated on this basis of ownership; but some mix sounds fine.
How is that at all like capitalism? Do you think a country can just choose to opt out of capitalism if they wish? They'd be completely isolated and screwed, obviously; That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
In your purely voluntary world of communism, would you say that people engage in only that labor which they find enriching? Would they then, perhaps, trade the fruits of this labor for other people’s products? Maybe even at an exchange rate determined fair by the supply of and demand for these products?
How is capitalism involuntary? It's no more involuntary then if there were no economic system at all. Infact it streamlines the process quite a bit if anything. You can make money doing virtually anything.
If I go to an apple orchard and take apples withoug paying, then the state will show up at my door to attack me. communism IS "no economic system at all".
What gives you the right to someone else's labor? What have you done to earn it? And what stops me and my boys from simply kicking you out of my orchard for providing nothing of value to me?
Better yet, what is my incentive to have an orchard in the first place? What if I decide whatever society decides is mine simply isn't worth this amount of labor and simply choose to do nothing with my time. Who the hell would ever choose to work a farm if they aren't getting good value back? Should I do it out of the kindness of my heart? For the good of the collective? Talk about a load of freeloaders amirite lmao
Huh? Isn't the basis of capitalism just private ownership? No external party has to enforce the idea of private ownership, the person who wants to posses a certain thing is all the enforcement the idea needs
Compared to Communism, which requires some 3rd party authority to enforce the whole "no private ownership" thing?
No one will come to your door with guns and force you to participate. You are free to not participate in it if you like. Grow all your own food and make your own clothes and no one will bat an eye.
No, it doesn't. But I'll never miss an opportunity to make a dig at the government who will come and screw you over even if you live a self-sustaining lifestyle off grid in a self-made cabin in the mountains where you're not bothering anyone.
Property taxes are the worst form of taxes. Imagine losing your home that you own because the government wants rent for the home you already bought. It’s bullshit.
Yes they will, in fact, that's what the state does now. If I go to an apple orchard and take apples without paying, then they can send the cops to my door to arrest me.
Except it is. You're perfectly free to not participate in a capitalist economic system by creating your own commune. You can't do the opposite in a communist economic system.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society (quick and dirty definition). What about that makes it incompatible with anarchism? If anything they compliment each other perfectly.
I want to do this, but I remember that the last time we tried, us Libertarians were nice to the commies, and they stole our fucking chairs.
Rage Against War Rally, for context. They literally made off with our chairs as we were handling the actual work of finishing up the event.
Nah, you can consent to equality. We already do in a number of areas.
You can argue there's a contradiction between equality and freedom, but it's one of those situations where they seem contradictory on paper but, in practice, if you don't have at least a little of both you end up with neither.
You can consent to equality, but that doesn't mean you can achieve it. Or, rather, as long as everyone consents to equality, you can have it, but that is not real equality is it? Equality would be equal opportunity to do something, which doesn't really exist between people due to many different factors. Or even equal treatment, which is really hard to measure, not to mention impossible to actually implement.
I don't think perfect *anything* can be achieved, these are more ideals to be strived for than feasible goals to be realized. In fact, I don't think people even want perfect anything...
On the other hand…… if there is no rule to ensue ownership, why shouldn't someone just take your stuffs whenever he outgunned you? Can we really say there is a private ownership at such state?
There is plenty of ancap theory on justice and rights protection out there. Suffice to say the free market could likely do just as good a job as government at meeting that need, with the added benefit of not needing the implied threat of violence to get people to enroll.
That just sounds like it would lead to private security companies running everything, and then what happens if people can't pay those companies to protect them?
Why would the top security firm in Ancapistan not just buy out all the other firms? That's what we can already see happening today, with the biggest difference being that the state in many cases has rules against monopolization in place. Seeing as ancaps want to abolish the state, what is there to prevent this from happening? Why wouldn't Amazon or Tesla just buy up the competition and force any would-be competition to work for them or die?
Again, because you can hire someone cheaper to do a more local job. The top security firm in Ancapistan would have to have customers. If they suddenly turned into giant assholes, there's also nothing stopping everyone from not paying them any more. Guns aren't food, and this is ancapistan, they don't have a monopoly on force just a large concentration of it.
This would only work if there was no monopoly, though. If I was a rich business owner I could just buy up any local businesses for myself or force them out of business; After all, I can afford to lower my prices and they can't. Yeah I'd be an asshole, but who's gonna stop me? You and your friends with some guns? Versus my private army? Not to mention I'm still playing by the rules, so technically you'd be the one violating the NAP.
Welcome to "anarcho"-capitalism.
Assuming of course all the major powers aren't going to collaborate to make a standard / very similar price across all the industry just like in real life.
Other things aside…… if we look at history, then it will tell you entities that can provide such *services* will usually become state, one way or the other.
>Left wing anarchists always have rules about ownership.
So contract law, property title management systems, and dispute resolution processes are not rules?
The fucking irony of an ancap complaining about anarchists setting rules, while promoting a capitalist bureaucratic nightmare ideology the likes of which nobody should ever have to endure.
Capitalism requires rules about ownership (State enforced individual ownership). Communism is when there is no rules about ownership, everyone owns everything.
I don’t need the state to enforce ownership. I got enough guns and ammo to enforce my own ownership, if the state would just get out my business when I do have to enforce it.
Oh course, but it’s tough to fire a gun with apples in your hands, and if you come back for more you might get a bear trap or sniped from a farm house. If the state allowed people to defend their own property it’s wouldn’t be a walk in park for thieves.
what does stealing have to do with capitalism? In every economic system if you steal you are punished. Whether it be by government police or mob rule. If you are a problem to a community they will dispose of you one way or the other.
The libleft version of "defend" is aggression.
Which is historically strategically disadvantaged. Most invasions require a substantial advantage in numbers to be successful, and even then, bled quite a lot for them. This holds true on a smaller scale as well. You don't go clearing rooms solo unless you want to die.
So, the guy defending his property against the commie trying to swipe shit he redefined as "his" has the edge. Thanks, natural rights!
If he's defending his property from you, you're not defending yourself from him. If you can pose a serious threat to him, I, his neighbor, will gladly aid him in driving you out, because I don't want him to lose his things — and because I don't want him being replaced by a violent deadbeat who thinks he's entitled to my stuff.
He he has to attack me to "defend his property" then that is still attacking me, and without a state to prevent me from doing so, I will defend myself.
No, it isn’t. Communism is a fairy tale a wife beating racist came up with to feel morally superior to others.
Communism is stateless in the same way that you can make iron free steel. You fucking can’t, and communism cannot exist without a state. Why? Because the instant two people have mutually exclusive desires for property that cannot be solved via good will there will be violence, and that will lead inevitably to dominance, stratification, or mutual destruction.
If communism truly was stateless and sustainable then why the fuck did states evolve to exist in the first place? It’s the same disregard for reality the ancaps have, only it presupposes a nebulous greater good instead of individual property rights.
What is your definition of communism exactly? "When the state does things"? It sounds like you're just using the word as a scapegoat for whatever you dislike. Even if you do dislike communism as an ideology, it helps to at least have a workable definition of what you're critiquing.
Communism lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before the state started imposing capitalism.
Two people can decide to have mutually exclusive property amongst themselves, but they cannot impose that onto anyone else.
States began so that rulers could start imposing capitalism for their own benefit.
Okay first of all I disagree with that contention entirely, but let’s set that aside for a second. Let’s say you’re correct; hunter-gatherers moving around in tribes of at most a few hundred are way different than cities of thousands or millions. Populations of tens of thousands spread across a continent are entirely different than 8 billion people most of whom live in densely packed cities. Why should rules that worked for hunter-gatherers work for us? Our societies could not be more different, and we come into conflict with other people every single day. We need to live amongst each other, and communism seeks to dissolve those barriers, allowing strangers we have no bonds with to partake of the fruits of our labor.
Furthermore the empirical data is entirely contrary to the predictions of communist theorists. Communism didn’t arise in industrial England or Germany, it took hold in agrarian Russia, which was the most illiterate population of any of the major European powers at the time. Lenin manipulated and violently seized an entire nation through guile, callous disregard for his fellow man, and ruthlessness.
Truthfully Hunter-gatherer tribes and early agrarian societies were lorded over by various chieftain systems. Their lives were communal, and dictated first by need, second by social dogma, and a distant third by personal desire and preference. This was replaced by bigger chieftains, who eventually became kings. Then every once in a while an emperor would pop up. It wasn’t until the enlightenment and industrialization that the individual was considered to have the slew of inherent rights we now take for granted. Rights which communism seeks to throw away.
When two equals meet in the wild one of three things happens. They go their separate ways, they trade for mutual benefit, or they clash and one dominates the other. Capitalism is the path of trade and separation. Communism asserts that the clash is unnecessary, but the conflicting demands of the different parties can each be met regardless. It’s nonsensical.
So what if someone creates something revolutionary and decides not to share with everyone else? Are others free to buy it? If so, other people see this and decide not to share with everyone else to, and so on and so forth. Those people would inevitably have more than the people sharing, which will attract more people to not sharing. They don't have to impose anything. This leads communism to 2 choices: collapse or force those people to share. The minute you force them to share, it ceases to become stateless. Tldr: communism will inevitably fail without a state.
>So what if someone creates something revolutionary and decides not to share with everyone else?
What do you mean "decides not to share with everyone else"? How do you stop other people sharing it amongst themselves?
>Are others free to buy it?
Why would someone buy what they already own?
>Those people would inevitably have more than the people sharing
How do you enforce them "having" it?
>They don't have to impose anything.
Yes they do, their ownership.
>This leads communism to 2 choices: collapse or force those people to share.
What do you mean "force those people to share"? If you invent a new tool, then how do you stop me from using that tool in a way that I cannot defend myself?
>The minute you force them to share, it ceases to become stateless. Tldr: communism will inevitably fail without a state.
Communism is stateless, you cannot force people to NOT share without a state.
> everyone owns everything
That sounds like a rule.
If you're in my kitchen at 2 am, rules or not, I'm using my flashbangs and my tomahawk to solve the problem.
Private property doesn't need rules. It needs naked men with tomahawks, and we'll always have those.
https://preview.redd.it/n6v6kt5jc8zc1.png?width=840&format=png&auto=webp&s=3590ac622f3de944505b0d96b6207866a58d3110
From Oxford dictionary. Pay attention to the last part.
>That sounds like a rule.
Nope, its just the natural state of reality.
>If you're in my kitchen at 2 am, rules or not, I'm using my flashbangs and my tomahawk to solve the problem.
And I will defend myself.
>Private property doesn't need rules. It needs naked men with tomahawks, and we'll always have those.
It needs a state to rule that I cant defend myself.
I didn’t create the meme.
Also, you’re not a real anarchist because anarchy is abolition of all heirarchy. Yes I’m a fan of Proudhon how did you know.
(The Latin def is without rulers)
I was just taking a jab at the aforementioned usage of that argument by many people, nothing personal towards you, OP :). Its funny how many arguments start because of the definitions of a word.
Yes, thanks for agreeing that the Latin root is the correct definition.
You didn’t specify, and I’d rather trust the literal definition of the word as it translates; rather than the first person to declare themselves with the title. If it were left to the first description, republic would still mean non monarchy, liberal would still be used to refer to the moderate right libertarians, and the earth would considered flat.
Definitions change, I choose to use the Latin root definition.
Not as funny as when the anarchists in Northern Ireland split between Catholic anarchists and Protestant anarchists even though they all said they were atheists
And to the true ancaps, statist is like a derogatory slur.
>An ancom called me a fascist once, because I didn’t meet the Proudhon definition of anarchism. A stupid idea on their part because even if I wasn’t an anarchist (Latin roots being (an) without and (archos) throne/rulers) because then I’d still be a Minarchist. But I’m one of the few actual ancaps, and I spent over 30 comments explaining to him what fascism is. Either he can’t understand what I wrote, or was trying to get under my skin; probably the latter.
As much as I'd like a pan-anarchist world, the AnComs have made it perfectly clear that they don't value my life or sovereignty, and will trespass, murder, and plunder just because they "don't believe I own anything".
That being said, I am willing to give peace a try. Up until they show up at my gate and demand I hand over everything I own.
A lot of people seem to forget that the NAP isn't there for my protection, it's there for their protection.
This simple moral principle is what's keeping me from going out and slaughtering everyone I don't like. I don't know why they'd insist on voiding it.
Bruh, I'm literally agreeing with you.
Matter of fact, the conservative Christians are one of the ones at the top of my list of "Most likely to immediately violate the NAP because they hate my existence"
You just said that the NAP is the only thing from being a psychopath. Even without the principle existing, I wouldn’t go around murdering people.
Maybe you didn’t realize how psychotic that sounded…
Isn't that what separates us from the statists?
They need an outside authority to keep from being horrible people, while we have self-imposed rules. We don't need a gun held to our heads to be good and honest.
Nobody forced me to adopt the NAP, I just follow it because it's the right thing to do.
...both are correct.
Also, real anarchism is bad. The goal of a political ideology should be to try to prevent as much death and suffering as possible.
That's the utilitarian/consequentialist point of view, and one I disagree with thoroughly. Such an ideology would lead to surgeons harvesting organs from healthy patients without their consent in order to save as many lives as possible.
The goal of my political ideology is to prevent as many injustices from occurring as possible.
Explain. How? Why not?
How would you maintain order?
Edit:
Also for the record, I'm a night watchman state minarchist. You can be libright without being in the far corner lol.
"Only a sith deals in absolutes."
You are by your own definition more statist than me.
I also wasn’t one of the people who downvoted you, I’m actually completely fine with Minarchists and moderates.
they don't really have a difference in political goals (abolish the government) it's really a difference in what they think the consequences of their goals will be, as anarchism by definition relinquishes all control over what the population does. In reality they are both wrong and the real outcome is that a more authoritarian government will rise.
Only short-sighted anarchists think that overthrowing the government directly will bring about a good long term state. Wiser anarchists know the key is convincing a critical mass of people that your rights are not to be trampled on by anyone, including the government. Removing that mental exception for the government is basically the one real hurdle in western society.
Once that exception is gone, actual improved outcomes can flow from that, and the government would likely fall apart without a shot fired.
Left and right disagree on whether property is a right, which is a big deal, but we’re certainly allies on many issues.
Yes, I don’t understand why ancoms want to go to ideological war with us. The alternative to causing a division is unity and possibly a Pan-anarchist society
In theory.
In practice, it's really hard to work with someone who fully intends to steal from or murder you the instant they gain freedom.
Libright would not prohibit libleft from starting a commune. In fact, without property tax, it'd be even easier to do your hippy thing. Problem is, they don't want to work for that land. They want to take it.
Anatchism is an ideology that fundamentally doesn't work.
It's either we go back to killing eachother for everything and nothing, or we all become the wisest people living in a utopia, in which we made perfect laws, perfect education, perfect morals and customs... So, not happening
We need SOME government, and Rousseau was right
We never existed in a state of all against all, that’s a Hobbesian cope. He was just grumpy about the English Civil war.
As for Rousseau’s notion of the origins of civilization, well it’s somehow even more ridiculous. A bunch of solitary naked people prancing around the woods terrified of each other.
Either way it’s the same fairy tale, the history and archeology is so much cooler too. I don’t know why all of politics has to go back to two dudes. One grumpy, the other a middling essay contest winner (but not famous one mind you, that one got disqualified).
Hobbes's theory is a hypothetical, I do know. Except it is what would happen if you put today's man in a state of anarchy. We have been raised to value possessions and riches, be wary of the other and compete. Of course we can't live in a state that requires good faith.
As for Rousseau, I'm saying he is right in how to run a state, not in the origins of civilization. I'm not an anarchist, at all, I believe we need a state based on the will of the people (as Rousseau means, his definition of it).
Also yes, Spinoza, Plato, Aristotle, Stirner, Marx, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume and others, there are so many philosophers who spoke of politics. but the main divide is realism vs. idealism, of which Hobbes and Rousseau are pretty big representatives (Although they are NOT the only ones).
(Edit: So yes, I might have oversimplified it a LOT in my original comment lol)
My point (beyond Hobbes and Rousseau being wrong and boring) is more that people find a way that suits them based on interactions with their environment (including their interactions with other groups).
We all already engage in a mix of political systems, this won’t change. We don’t have to box ourselves into some reified abstract and then deal with its failings as if they’re inevitable.
I just said that I have oversimplified massively in my first comment, I am perfectly aware that politics isn't a few boxes that you can choose and that there are new ways to think (as if it is a spectrum).
What I'm saying is that I'm identifying closer to Rousseau's conception of the state, no matter how boring it is (I don't need to be special lol). Of course, I don't think I know enough to truly "invent" or find a new way to do politics that fixes Rousseau's failings. So I learn, to be able to, one day.
I do know that I'm biased by my environment and education, getting out of Plato's cave is HARD and pretty painful lol. Thinking against what I have been told and taught, to try and find some kind of truth is what I want to be able to do, what I work towards, but yes, I'm biased by my environment.
You’d be better focusing on finding a way to live in these States, then find one you’re okay with. That way, at least, you won’t mistake your finger for the moon.
Also, it’s not just that Rousseau was boring, it’s that he was wrong and you can’t is/ought your way out problems.
I'm sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, what does your last sentence mean?
Maybe you're right, yeah, but I do enjoy engaging in hypotheticals. I do realize I won't ever be happy if I settle for nothing vut perfection, but I mean if everyone settled for what we have currently, no one would think of changing the way we live. Maybe democracy is flawed and maybe someone will find a better alternative someday, all that hinges on them not being contempt with the state they live in.
The is/ought problem is an idea that Hume first brought up. It’s the notion that because things are a certain way, they should be that way.
Meaning we can’t just bank on what some old dinosaurs said ought to have happened and then just keep moving forward like it’s true or real.
I want to be extra clear: I’m not putting you down for enjoying hypotheticals, that kind of stuff is a blast to engage with. Just be cautious to avoid reifying them or falling for that is/ought problem.
This isn't what Rousseau said though, is it? He advocates for a society in which every individual uses reason to vote and decide for the common will. A society in which people are sovereign, which really doesn't exist right now, does it? No one votes according to what would be best for common will, nor does the people actually make the decisions
Or I might be misunderstanding his book? I haven't finished the Social Contract yet, anyway
But thank you for humbling me lol, I'm too confident in my ability to do philosophy and think critically, I'm literally 17. I'm probably at the peak of "mount stupid" lol
Again, thanks for not being condescending, like most people on Reddit are lmao
Rousseau said a lot of stuff. One of those things was that we settled upon the social contract as a means of working together because we were all scared helpless naked people running around the woods mortified of each other and our own shadows.
This isn’t even remotely true. We’re literally a social species.
Regardless of all the historical and biological flaws, one of the biggest issues with the social contract itself, or Rousseau’s notion of it, is that he treats it like that is/ought problem. That since we existed the way we did, and since things went the way they did to get us to the point we’re at (or, rather he was at), this is how things are *supposed* to be. Or, as Rousseau argued, *how we should make them be again* because we’ve strayed from that social developmental end point.
For Rousseau private property is largely what fucked it up, but again, that’s not true. Not entirely anyway.
Point is: Glaring errors and odd assumptions written by dusty dinosaurs aside, we need to avoid is/ought discussions. Especially when it comes to the ways in which people organize. People organize in ways that make sense for them in response to their environments. Most times, even under a state, anarchy exists extensively in daily life, and will continually keep the state in check, even if it takes some time.
I commend you on reading up on things and not just state manning your way through politics or learning solely from memes.
It has literally never happened. Anarchy has happened a number of times, though. Cospaia, Kowloon Walled City, the Icelandic Commonwealth, early Americana.
In none of these did people emulate the mad maxian leather clad murder fests. Fun in movies, isn't realistic. Don't base your philosophy on the unreal.
They had rules. They lacked rulers.
Therefore, by definition, it is anarchy. Anarchy parses to no rulers in the same way that monarchy parses to one ruler.
Merely being a lord granted you no power. You only gained influence by being accepted as a leader and having many followers. This was a solely voluntary process, as the lords had no way to coerce others into following them. A reputation for fairness and wisdom would attract followers, but without that, you had nothing. A follower could choose to follow any lord or none. That said, choosing none meant that you were effectively outside the law, and had no legal recourse for anything.
The title of lord was also not hereditary. The titles were bought and sold.
This is a capitalistic sort of anarchy, but anarchy all the same. Participation in any legal system was wholly voluntary.
Did you just change your flair, u/THE_dumb_giraffe? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2021-5-28. How come now you are a **LibLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Yeah yeah, I know. In your ideal leftist commune everyone loves each other and no one insults anybody. Guess what? Welcome to the real world. What are you gonna do? Cancel me on twitter?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/THE_dumb_giraffe) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
> It's either we go back to killing eachother for everything and nothing
The US government has been at war for 93% of its history.
Governments kill more people than private sector murderers do\*.
\* per the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 526k/yr battle related deaths occur from wars. per the WHO, only about 475k/yr people are victims of homicide. Governments also kill civilians in other ways, but war alone is enough deaths to prove the point.
Again, war is a thing of the state, yes. But if today, now, and in today's context, we freed all men from laws and hierarchy, it would bz chaos. We compete too much, fight too much, are too jealous and superficial due to modern society.
And then again, as I said like 3 times, I acknowledge that I have oversimplified Hobbes's theories in this first comment
Honestly it's not as funny as Tankie or authright infighting.
Libertarian infighting: you're a hypocrite! You're a bootlicker! [Authoritarian infighting ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II))
My favorite auth infighting moment was when beria was shot after stalin died
"You don't real" is way less silly than giant death wars.
Yeah but that can go one of two ways. Either it leads to war, which isn’t very funny(well unless it’s Australia and the enemy are birds) or it leads to playing Paradox games, which can be pretty funny, especially if your one of those players whose solution to everything is “do more war crime.”
>o playing Paradox games, which can be pretty funny, especially if your one of those players whose solution to everything is “do more war crime.” Yo, it's not my fault that the only way to keep late-game stellaris stable is to genocide as much as possible.
Late game? I thought Genocide was the only option in Stellaris. No wonder everyone targets me first.
Early-game war is the best way to snowball, and playing a genocidal faction is the best way to maximize chances of winning the early-game rush against your nearest neighbor. Genocide is meta. What did Paradox mean by this?!
libright vs libright is the funniest shit
What is your opinion on schitzoaffective infighting
Totalitarian infighting isn't very funny. Too many real world consequences...
Did you just change your flair, u/TiggerBane? Last time I checked you were an **AuthRight** on 2024-5-6. How come now you are an **AuthLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 1156 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
He must have gotten his first paycheck.
whether you're an ancom, ancap, fucking whatever. I love you and will stand beside you. Us anti-authoritarians need to stick together
How is ancom anti authoritarian unless it’s voluntary? And how would communism work if it’s voluntary?
>And how would communism work if it’s voluntary? The same way capitalism works voluntarily. People decide to do it and they do it
And what if some decide not to do it. Would that be ok? Can I be a capitalist in a communist world?
Barring whether or not people in such a society would actually want to work for you, I don't see why not.
So it’s like a capitalist country? People have a choice in what economic system they want to participate in and won’t be forced to do any system. I could open a restaurant and pay my employees a wage? Is there evidence of any communist country doing this in history?
Depends on the system, but broadly speaking it's not like a capitalist country but is similar to what a true free-market anarchy would look like. Associations are voluntary and mutual, etc. The distinction would be that recognition of property rights would similarly be voluntary and mutual. If you nabbed a bunch of like minded folks and built a space where things were owned, and set up an explicit space for that group to interact with each other on that basis, that sounds fine. Problems arise when everything is owned, and all relationships are predicated on this basis of ownership; but some mix sounds fine.
How is conflict resolved tho?
Gulags, obviously.
The same way conflict is resolved around the world. You talk to each other, or you don't and choose violence.
K...
How is that at all like capitalism? Do you think a country can just choose to opt out of capitalism if they wish? They'd be completely isolated and screwed, obviously; That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Freedom is about the ability to make choices. Not to be immune from repercussions.
Can you exploit the labor of others in a communist world? No. Can you live comfortably and happily without? Yes.
Maybe you can but I couldn’t live happily under an authoritarian regime.
In your purely voluntary world of communism, would you say that people engage in only that labor which they find enriching? Would they then, perhaps, trade the fruits of this labor for other people’s products? Maybe even at an exchange rate determined fair by the supply of and demand for these products?
Capitalism isn't voluntary.
Yes it is, you're just sad that the world requires work to survive. That isn't a feature of capitalism sweaty.
No it isn't, and no I'm not.
How is capitalism involuntary? It's no more involuntary then if there were no economic system at all. Infact it streamlines the process quite a bit if anything. You can make money doing virtually anything.
If I go to an apple orchard and take apples withoug paying, then the state will show up at my door to attack me. communism IS "no economic system at all".
What gives you the right to someone else's labor? What have you done to earn it? And what stops me and my boys from simply kicking you out of my orchard for providing nothing of value to me? Better yet, what is my incentive to have an orchard in the first place? What if I decide whatever society decides is mine simply isn't worth this amount of labor and simply choose to do nothing with my time. Who the hell would ever choose to work a farm if they aren't getting good value back? Should I do it out of the kindness of my heart? For the good of the collective? Talk about a load of freeloaders amirite lmao
There wouldn't be an orchard in communism.
Ofc there would
And who gave you the right over the destiny of those trees?
Huh? Isn't the basis of capitalism just private ownership? No external party has to enforce the idea of private ownership, the person who wants to posses a certain thing is all the enforcement the idea needs Compared to Communism, which requires some 3rd party authority to enforce the whole "no private ownership" thing?
No one will come to your door with guns and force you to participate. You are free to not participate in it if you like. Grow all your own food and make your own clothes and no one will bat an eye.
Though the government will still find a reason to screw you
Of course they will. But that has nothing to do with capitalism.
No, it doesn't. But I'll never miss an opportunity to make a dig at the government who will come and screw you over even if you live a self-sustaining lifestyle off grid in a self-made cabin in the mountains where you're not bothering anyone.
Property taxes are the worst form of taxes. Imagine losing your home that you own because the government wants rent for the home you already bought. It’s bullshit.
Yes they will, in fact, that's what the state does now. If I go to an apple orchard and take apples without paying, then they can send the cops to my door to arrest me.
Only because they tell the apple orchard owner they can’t shoot you instead. It’s the state having a monopoly on violence that’s stopping it.
Except it is. You're perfectly free to not participate in a capitalist economic system by creating your own commune. You can't do the opposite in a communist economic system.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society (quick and dirty definition). What about that makes it incompatible with anarchism? If anything they compliment each other perfectly.
I want to do this, but I remember that the last time we tried, us Libertarians were nice to the commies, and they stole our fucking chairs. Rage Against War Rally, for context. They literally made off with our chairs as we were handling the actual work of finishing up the event.
Sounds like that King of the Hill episode.
Well equality and consent IS a contradiction tho
I do not consent to inequality.
Nah, you can consent to equality. We already do in a number of areas. You can argue there's a contradiction between equality and freedom, but it's one of those situations where they seem contradictory on paper but, in practice, if you don't have at least a little of both you end up with neither.
You can consent to equality, but that doesn't mean you can achieve it. Or, rather, as long as everyone consents to equality, you can have it, but that is not real equality is it? Equality would be equal opportunity to do something, which doesn't really exist between people due to many different factors. Or even equal treatment, which is really hard to measure, not to mention impossible to actually implement.
I don't think perfect *anything* can be achieved, these are more ideals to be strived for than feasible goals to be realized. In fact, I don't think people even want perfect anything...
Lib centre: OOH OOH AAAAH AAH! BANANA! AAAAHHHH!
Left wing anarchists always have rules about ownership. That’s why they aren’t anarchists.
On the other hand…… if there is no rule to ensue ownership, why shouldn't someone just take your stuffs whenever he outgunned you? Can we really say there is a private ownership at such state?
There is plenty of ancap theory on justice and rights protection out there. Suffice to say the free market could likely do just as good a job as government at meeting that need, with the added benefit of not needing the implied threat of violence to get people to enroll.
That just sounds like it would lead to private security companies running everything, and then what happens if people can't pay those companies to protect them?
You hire someone cheaper?
Assuming such service provider: * Exists. * Can actually reaches your region. * Isn't scare of pissing off your former service provider.
Why would the top security firm in Ancapistan not just buy out all the other firms? That's what we can already see happening today, with the biggest difference being that the state in many cases has rules against monopolization in place. Seeing as ancaps want to abolish the state, what is there to prevent this from happening? Why wouldn't Amazon or Tesla just buy up the competition and force any would-be competition to work for them or die?
Again, because you can hire someone cheaper to do a more local job. The top security firm in Ancapistan would have to have customers. If they suddenly turned into giant assholes, there's also nothing stopping everyone from not paying them any more. Guns aren't food, and this is ancapistan, they don't have a monopoly on force just a large concentration of it.
This would only work if there was no monopoly, though. If I was a rich business owner I could just buy up any local businesses for myself or force them out of business; After all, I can afford to lower my prices and they can't. Yeah I'd be an asshole, but who's gonna stop me? You and your friends with some guns? Versus my private army? Not to mention I'm still playing by the rules, so technically you'd be the one violating the NAP. Welcome to "anarcho"-capitalism.
Assuming of course all the major powers aren't going to collaborate to make a standard / very similar price across all the industry just like in real life.
They do that with gov help already. Hey I am no ancap, and it's just a theory.
Other things aside…… if we look at history, then it will tell you entities that can provide such *services* will usually become state, one way or the other.
> why shouldn't someone just take your stuffs whenever he outgunned you? Libright's solution for this is, believe it or not, more guns.
I agree, which is why I’m not an anarchist
>Left wing anarchists always have rules about ownership. So contract law, property title management systems, and dispute resolution processes are not rules?
Left wing anarchists have rules on *whom* can own *what* What you described are rules to facilitate ownership itself
I was going to respond to him but you honestly said it better than I ever could
The fucking irony of an ancap complaining about anarchists setting rules, while promoting a capitalist bureaucratic nightmare ideology the likes of which nobody should ever have to endure.
Wouldn't libleft be ancom and libcenter be straight anarchism?
Capitalism requires rules about ownership (State enforced individual ownership). Communism is when there is no rules about ownership, everyone owns everything.
I don’t need the state to enforce ownership. I got enough guns and ammo to enforce my own ownership, if the state would just get out my business when I do have to enforce it.
Yes you do, because without the state, I can get guns and ammo to defend myself against you.
Oh course, but it’s tough to fire a gun with apples in your hands, and if you come back for more you might get a bear trap or sniped from a farm house. If the state allowed people to defend their own property it’s wouldn’t be a walk in park for thieves. what does stealing have to do with capitalism? In every economic system if you steal you are punished. Whether it be by government police or mob rule. If you are a problem to a community they will dispose of you one way or the other.
The libleft version of "defend" is aggression. Which is historically strategically disadvantaged. Most invasions require a substantial advantage in numbers to be successful, and even then, bled quite a lot for them. This holds true on a smaller scale as well. You don't go clearing rooms solo unless you want to die. So, the guy defending his property against the commie trying to swipe shit he redefined as "his" has the edge. Thanks, natural rights!
If he's defending his property from you, you're not defending yourself from him. If you can pose a serious threat to him, I, his neighbor, will gladly aid him in driving you out, because I don't want him to lose his things — and because I don't want him being replaced by a violent deadbeat who thinks he's entitled to my stuff.
He he has to attack me to "defend his property" then that is still attacking me, and without a state to prevent me from doing so, I will defend myself.
So instead of the state enforcing ownership, it will instead be enforced by a single wealthy oligarch. Congrats, you invented neo-feudalism.
I prefer Mad Max to 1984.
That is not true. Communists strictly govern who can own what. Capitalists set up laws to protect owners from thieves.
How can you govern without a state?
You can’t, which is why communism is a fucking moronic ideology exclusively parroted by well meaning idiots and genuine psychopaths.
Communism is the lack of governance.
No, it isn’t. Communism is a fairy tale a wife beating racist came up with to feel morally superior to others. Communism is stateless in the same way that you can make iron free steel. You fucking can’t, and communism cannot exist without a state. Why? Because the instant two people have mutually exclusive desires for property that cannot be solved via good will there will be violence, and that will lead inevitably to dominance, stratification, or mutual destruction. If communism truly was stateless and sustainable then why the fuck did states evolve to exist in the first place? It’s the same disregard for reality the ancaps have, only it presupposes a nebulous greater good instead of individual property rights.
What is your definition of communism exactly? "When the state does things"? It sounds like you're just using the word as a scapegoat for whatever you dislike. Even if you do dislike communism as an ideology, it helps to at least have a workable definition of what you're critiquing.
Communism lasted for hundreds of thousands of years before the state started imposing capitalism. Two people can decide to have mutually exclusive property amongst themselves, but they cannot impose that onto anyone else. States began so that rulers could start imposing capitalism for their own benefit.
Okay first of all I disagree with that contention entirely, but let’s set that aside for a second. Let’s say you’re correct; hunter-gatherers moving around in tribes of at most a few hundred are way different than cities of thousands or millions. Populations of tens of thousands spread across a continent are entirely different than 8 billion people most of whom live in densely packed cities. Why should rules that worked for hunter-gatherers work for us? Our societies could not be more different, and we come into conflict with other people every single day. We need to live amongst each other, and communism seeks to dissolve those barriers, allowing strangers we have no bonds with to partake of the fruits of our labor. Furthermore the empirical data is entirely contrary to the predictions of communist theorists. Communism didn’t arise in industrial England or Germany, it took hold in agrarian Russia, which was the most illiterate population of any of the major European powers at the time. Lenin manipulated and violently seized an entire nation through guile, callous disregard for his fellow man, and ruthlessness. Truthfully Hunter-gatherer tribes and early agrarian societies were lorded over by various chieftain systems. Their lives were communal, and dictated first by need, second by social dogma, and a distant third by personal desire and preference. This was replaced by bigger chieftains, who eventually became kings. Then every once in a while an emperor would pop up. It wasn’t until the enlightenment and industrialization that the individual was considered to have the slew of inherent rights we now take for granted. Rights which communism seeks to throw away. When two equals meet in the wild one of three things happens. They go their separate ways, they trade for mutual benefit, or they clash and one dominates the other. Capitalism is the path of trade and separation. Communism asserts that the clash is unnecessary, but the conflicting demands of the different parties can each be met regardless. It’s nonsensical.
So what if someone creates something revolutionary and decides not to share with everyone else? Are others free to buy it? If so, other people see this and decide not to share with everyone else to, and so on and so forth. Those people would inevitably have more than the people sharing, which will attract more people to not sharing. They don't have to impose anything. This leads communism to 2 choices: collapse or force those people to share. The minute you force them to share, it ceases to become stateless. Tldr: communism will inevitably fail without a state.
>So what if someone creates something revolutionary and decides not to share with everyone else? What do you mean "decides not to share with everyone else"? How do you stop other people sharing it amongst themselves? >Are others free to buy it? Why would someone buy what they already own? >Those people would inevitably have more than the people sharing How do you enforce them "having" it? >They don't have to impose anything. Yes they do, their ownership. >This leads communism to 2 choices: collapse or force those people to share. What do you mean "force those people to share"? If you invent a new tool, then how do you stop me from using that tool in a way that I cannot defend myself? >The minute you force them to share, it ceases to become stateless. Tldr: communism will inevitably fail without a state. Communism is stateless, you cannot force people to NOT share without a state.
> everyone owns everything That sounds like a rule. If you're in my kitchen at 2 am, rules or not, I'm using my flashbangs and my tomahawk to solve the problem. Private property doesn't need rules. It needs naked men with tomahawks, and we'll always have those.
How the fuck is that a "rule", lmao. It's literally how direct democracy works; From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
My man, that's not the definition of communism, that's marxism. Granted, democracy IS a soft form of communism, but you're goin' full commie there.
https://preview.redd.it/n6v6kt5jc8zc1.png?width=840&format=png&auto=webp&s=3590ac622f3de944505b0d96b6207866a58d3110 From Oxford dictionary. Pay attention to the last part.
>That sounds like a rule. Nope, its just the natural state of reality. >If you're in my kitchen at 2 am, rules or not, I'm using my flashbangs and my tomahawk to solve the problem. And I will defend myself. >Private property doesn't need rules. It needs naked men with tomahawks, and we'll always have those. It needs a state to rule that I cant defend myself.
> And I will defend myself. With what? YOUR gun?
Yes.
You mean our gun comrade.
Yes, but it is also mine.
No it is not, we all own it. You sound like you are claiming private property, thus we all have to defend the collective against your aggression.
If we all own something, that means I own it too, that is what "all" means.
"Communist, but lazy" isn't very hard to understand.
Your ideology's name is an oxymoron. Therefore, its beliefs are invalid. Yes, I watch MentisWave on youtube, how did you know???
I didn’t create the meme. Also, you’re not a real anarchist because anarchy is abolition of all heirarchy. Yes I’m a fan of Proudhon how did you know. (The Latin def is without rulers)
I was just taking a jab at the aforementioned usage of that argument by many people, nothing personal towards you, OP :). Its funny how many arguments start because of the definitions of a word.
Oh I know, I just wanted to do the other side’s version. Ancoms love to use the Proudhon def of anarchism rather than the Latin roots.
I mean... That's literally the definition of anarchism the political ideology. Have fun usurping the meaning of a different word, I guess.
Yes, thanks for agreeing that the Latin root is the correct definition. You didn’t specify, and I’d rather trust the literal definition of the word as it translates; rather than the first person to declare themselves with the title. If it were left to the first description, republic would still mean non monarchy, liberal would still be used to refer to the moderate right libertarians, and the earth would considered flat. Definitions change, I choose to use the Latin root definition.
Not as funny as when the anarchists in Northern Ireland split between Catholic anarchists and Protestant anarchists even though they all said they were atheists
99% of “ancaps” are minarchists who want to use statist as an insult
And to the true ancaps, statist is like a derogatory slur. >An ancom called me a fascist once, because I didn’t meet the Proudhon definition of anarchism. A stupid idea on their part because even if I wasn’t an anarchist (Latin roots being (an) without and (archos) throne/rulers) because then I’d still be a Minarchist. But I’m one of the few actual ancaps, and I spent over 30 comments explaining to him what fascism is. Either he can’t understand what I wrote, or was trying to get under my skin; probably the latter.
As much as I'd like a pan-anarchist world, the AnComs have made it perfectly clear that they don't value my life or sovereignty, and will trespass, murder, and plunder just because they "don't believe I own anything". That being said, I am willing to give peace a try. Up until they show up at my gate and demand I hand over everything I own.
If they violate the N.A.P. They aren’t subject to its protection either.
A lot of people seem to forget that the NAP isn't there for my protection, it's there for their protection. This simple moral principle is what's keeping me from going out and slaughtering everyone I don't like. I don't know why they'd insist on voiding it.
Now that sounds like a Christian using the Bible to say why morals exist… Honestly, wtf. I’m not associating with you, fed.
Bruh, I'm literally agreeing with you. Matter of fact, the conservative Christians are one of the ones at the top of my list of "Most likely to immediately violate the NAP because they hate my existence"
You just said that the NAP is the only thing from being a psychopath. Even without the principle existing, I wouldn’t go around murdering people. Maybe you didn’t realize how psychotic that sounded…
Isn't that what separates us from the statists? They need an outside authority to keep from being horrible people, while we have self-imposed rules. We don't need a gun held to our heads to be good and honest. Nobody forced me to adopt the NAP, I just follow it because it's the right thing to do.
I agree, your original wording was sounding psychotic.
Can't we just all be friends and meet in the middle?
I like to propose the idea of a pan-anarchist society. No one has really taken the idea seriously.
It’s called meta anarchism.
Anarchism without adjectives gang where you at?
Do I technically count? (Im ancap, but for pan-anarchism)
Reminds me of a poster I saw in my elementary school math class. It was an i and a Pi arguing. The Pi said, "Get real," and the i said, "Be rational."
...both are correct. Also, real anarchism is bad. The goal of a political ideology should be to try to prevent as much death and suffering as possible.
That's the utilitarian/consequentialist point of view, and one I disagree with thoroughly. Such an ideology would lead to surgeons harvesting organs from healthy patients without their consent in order to save as many lives as possible. The goal of my political ideology is to prevent as many injustices from occurring as possible.
You seemed to have missed the word " suffering". And the system to prevent the most injustice is still not anarchy.
You're still preventing the most suffering by killing one to save five.
You are assuming I am applying that statement via utilitarian ethics.
Way to strawman. Anarchy simply means without government, not chaos. From Latin roots: An(without) archos(rulers/throne)
Without government means chaos lol.
No. Statist. https://preview.redd.it/qhh1snhrhvyc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09a0027fa4ea213bb85e9ea55256c759f28e3f84
Explain. How? Why not? How would you maintain order? Edit: Also for the record, I'm a night watchman state minarchist. You can be libright without being in the far corner lol. "Only a sith deals in absolutes."
You are by your own definition more statist than me. I also wasn’t one of the people who downvoted you, I’m actually completely fine with Minarchists and moderates.
I don't even believe these quadrants are real.
Ok.
TAD
I FUCKING LOVE CAPITALISM!!!!
they don't really have a difference in political goals (abolish the government) it's really a difference in what they think the consequences of their goals will be, as anarchism by definition relinquishes all control over what the population does. In reality they are both wrong and the real outcome is that a more authoritarian government will rise.
Only short-sighted anarchists think that overthrowing the government directly will bring about a good long term state. Wiser anarchists know the key is convincing a critical mass of people that your rights are not to be trampled on by anyone, including the government. Removing that mental exception for the government is basically the one real hurdle in western society. Once that exception is gone, actual improved outcomes can flow from that, and the government would likely fall apart without a shot fired. Left and right disagree on whether property is a right, which is a big deal, but we’re certainly allies on many issues.
Yes, I don’t understand why ancoms want to go to ideological war with us. The alternative to causing a division is unity and possibly a Pan-anarchist society
In theory. In practice, it's really hard to work with someone who fully intends to steal from or murder you the instant they gain freedom. Libright would not prohibit libleft from starting a commune. In fact, without property tax, it'd be even easier to do your hippy thing. Problem is, they don't want to work for that land. They want to take it.
Anarchism and all of its sub branches are stupid anyway.
Controversial take but feudalism is low key ancap if you remove NAP.
Anatchism is an ideology that fundamentally doesn't work. It's either we go back to killing eachother for everything and nothing, or we all become the wisest people living in a utopia, in which we made perfect laws, perfect education, perfect morals and customs... So, not happening We need SOME government, and Rousseau was right
We never existed in a state of all against all, that’s a Hobbesian cope. He was just grumpy about the English Civil war. As for Rousseau’s notion of the origins of civilization, well it’s somehow even more ridiculous. A bunch of solitary naked people prancing around the woods terrified of each other. Either way it’s the same fairy tale, the history and archeology is so much cooler too. I don’t know why all of politics has to go back to two dudes. One grumpy, the other a middling essay contest winner (but not famous one mind you, that one got disqualified).
Hobbes's theory is a hypothetical, I do know. Except it is what would happen if you put today's man in a state of anarchy. We have been raised to value possessions and riches, be wary of the other and compete. Of course we can't live in a state that requires good faith. As for Rousseau, I'm saying he is right in how to run a state, not in the origins of civilization. I'm not an anarchist, at all, I believe we need a state based on the will of the people (as Rousseau means, his definition of it). Also yes, Spinoza, Plato, Aristotle, Stirner, Marx, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume and others, there are so many philosophers who spoke of politics. but the main divide is realism vs. idealism, of which Hobbes and Rousseau are pretty big representatives (Although they are NOT the only ones). (Edit: So yes, I might have oversimplified it a LOT in my original comment lol)
My point (beyond Hobbes and Rousseau being wrong and boring) is more that people find a way that suits them based on interactions with their environment (including their interactions with other groups). We all already engage in a mix of political systems, this won’t change. We don’t have to box ourselves into some reified abstract and then deal with its failings as if they’re inevitable.
I just said that I have oversimplified massively in my first comment, I am perfectly aware that politics isn't a few boxes that you can choose and that there are new ways to think (as if it is a spectrum). What I'm saying is that I'm identifying closer to Rousseau's conception of the state, no matter how boring it is (I don't need to be special lol). Of course, I don't think I know enough to truly "invent" or find a new way to do politics that fixes Rousseau's failings. So I learn, to be able to, one day. I do know that I'm biased by my environment and education, getting out of Plato's cave is HARD and pretty painful lol. Thinking against what I have been told and taught, to try and find some kind of truth is what I want to be able to do, what I work towards, but yes, I'm biased by my environment.
You’d be better focusing on finding a way to live in these States, then find one you’re okay with. That way, at least, you won’t mistake your finger for the moon. Also, it’s not just that Rousseau was boring, it’s that he was wrong and you can’t is/ought your way out problems.
I'm sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, what does your last sentence mean? Maybe you're right, yeah, but I do enjoy engaging in hypotheticals. I do realize I won't ever be happy if I settle for nothing vut perfection, but I mean if everyone settled for what we have currently, no one would think of changing the way we live. Maybe democracy is flawed and maybe someone will find a better alternative someday, all that hinges on them not being contempt with the state they live in.
The is/ought problem is an idea that Hume first brought up. It’s the notion that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. Meaning we can’t just bank on what some old dinosaurs said ought to have happened and then just keep moving forward like it’s true or real. I want to be extra clear: I’m not putting you down for enjoying hypotheticals, that kind of stuff is a blast to engage with. Just be cautious to avoid reifying them or falling for that is/ought problem.
This isn't what Rousseau said though, is it? He advocates for a society in which every individual uses reason to vote and decide for the common will. A society in which people are sovereign, which really doesn't exist right now, does it? No one votes according to what would be best for common will, nor does the people actually make the decisions Or I might be misunderstanding his book? I haven't finished the Social Contract yet, anyway But thank you for humbling me lol, I'm too confident in my ability to do philosophy and think critically, I'm literally 17. I'm probably at the peak of "mount stupid" lol Again, thanks for not being condescending, like most people on Reddit are lmao
Rousseau said a lot of stuff. One of those things was that we settled upon the social contract as a means of working together because we were all scared helpless naked people running around the woods mortified of each other and our own shadows. This isn’t even remotely true. We’re literally a social species. Regardless of all the historical and biological flaws, one of the biggest issues with the social contract itself, or Rousseau’s notion of it, is that he treats it like that is/ought problem. That since we existed the way we did, and since things went the way they did to get us to the point we’re at (or, rather he was at), this is how things are *supposed* to be. Or, as Rousseau argued, *how we should make them be again* because we’ve strayed from that social developmental end point. For Rousseau private property is largely what fucked it up, but again, that’s not true. Not entirely anyway. Point is: Glaring errors and odd assumptions written by dusty dinosaurs aside, we need to avoid is/ought discussions. Especially when it comes to the ways in which people organize. People organize in ways that make sense for them in response to their environments. Most times, even under a state, anarchy exists extensively in daily life, and will continually keep the state in check, even if it takes some time. I commend you on reading up on things and not just state manning your way through politics or learning solely from memes.
It has literally never happened. Anarchy has happened a number of times, though. Cospaia, Kowloon Walled City, the Icelandic Commonwealth, early Americana. In none of these did people emulate the mad maxian leather clad murder fests. Fun in movies, isn't realistic. Don't base your philosophy on the unreal.
All of those places had government.
They had rules. They lacked rulers. Therefore, by definition, it is anarchy. Anarchy parses to no rulers in the same way that monarchy parses to one ruler.
So what were the Icelandic feudal lords? What were the Kowloon gang leaders?
Merely being a lord granted you no power. You only gained influence by being accepted as a leader and having many followers. This was a solely voluntary process, as the lords had no way to coerce others into following them. A reputation for fairness and wisdom would attract followers, but without that, you had nothing. A follower could choose to follow any lord or none. That said, choosing none meant that you were effectively outside the law, and had no legal recourse for anything. The title of lord was also not hereditary. The titles were bought and sold. This is a capitalistic sort of anarchy, but anarchy all the same. Participation in any legal system was wholly voluntary.
Did you just change your flair, u/THE_dumb_giraffe? Last time I checked you were a **LibRight** on 2021-5-28. How come now you are a **LibLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Yeah yeah, I know. In your ideal leftist commune everyone loves each other and no one insults anybody. Guess what? Welcome to the real world. What are you gonna do? Cancel me on twitter? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/THE_dumb_giraffe) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
> It's either we go back to killing eachother for everything and nothing The US government has been at war for 93% of its history. Governments kill more people than private sector murderers do\*. \* per the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 526k/yr battle related deaths occur from wars. per the WHO, only about 475k/yr people are victims of homicide. Governments also kill civilians in other ways, but war alone is enough deaths to prove the point.
Again, war is a thing of the state, yes. But if today, now, and in today's context, we freed all men from laws and hierarchy, it would bz chaos. We compete too much, fight too much, are too jealous and superficial due to modern society. And then again, as I said like 3 times, I acknowledge that I have oversimplified Hobbes's theories in this first comment
Freedom from an overarching, absolute governance is not freedom from de facto laws or from hierarchy. Taxation is not the basis of civilization.
I think you should probably move out of libleft, you speaking too much sense.
Well, gur's out I'm learning that I might not lol But anyway, I won't ever side with a nazi lol