Message from @Lidomite
Discord ID: 649961672089403395
Ah.
They both end in the same way though
Yup
Do both of them emphasize the "workers owning the means of production"? Whatever that means.
That's only communism I believe
But yet again, that doesn't actually ever happen as the govt owns any and all businesses
then you get people claiming they'll dismantle the government, yet somehow be able to get people to cooperate without a governing display of force
Isn't that one of the biggest problems with anarchy?
Anarchy is no government at all
anarchy is great if you can't think more than one step ahead.
I was referring to Dragon's comment about how if the government is somehow dismantled, then there will be a huge power vacuum that will quickly be filled.
Yup
Most likely by the military.
Hello fellow immigrants
Allo
Expecting nobody to want to do better with their life, or simply want more power is one of it's short sighted problems
Hello
Hm, I can not change my name apparently...
The issue with anarchy is that it's not only prone to corruption, but it's hard to get out of
Unless you manage to develop a hierarchy within the anarchy that can survive long enough to become stable
It's not that hard. Just gather a group of people, arm them all, establish a base and say it's the central authority now, and kill everyone that dissents.
and likely to be filled with violence, because the government no longer manages the application of force. So you'd better be ready to protect your own from any violent thug that takes interest, especially when nobody is going to have any obligation to look out for you.
All it takes is a bunch of cracked skulls
That's incredibly hard to make a stable mock govt
and wouldn't forming that kind of group be antithetical to anarchy?
yeah, "violent thugs" describes many anarchists well, so...
it just creates the 'problem' they got themselves out of
I'd imagine that a "pure" or total anarchy (no hierarchy at all) would disappear pretty fast when people start to organize themselves to protect themselves and so on
well when you own nothing and you achieve nothing, you won't need a government to protect your property rights.
it might even end up worse than before because how do you hold a mock government to account when it's decided by who has the biggest stick makes the rules?
Reminds me of that video Sargon did titled "Antifa Battle Strategies".
But my understanding is that no-one really is advocating for that, at least the anarchists I've chatted with want a system that is based on smaller communities freely organizing in any manner they want and voting on everything
...which is still really unrealistic
Yeah, we've far advanced away from small tribes, how do they expect to survive if we suddenly isolate ourselves away from each other?
curious which one of those smaller communities will build dams and fund cancer research, etc.
or hell, provide food, water, energy etc
even manpower might become a more valuable resource
Not only that but small communities wouldn't really need to vote because you already know the people ~~or should~~
people's standards of living would certainly drop, if they're limited to what their particular tribe has available
no one will be able to specialise anymore because everyone will have to work the fields
To be fair, while I had some fun discussing things like anarchy in the past, I usually refuse to even debate anarchy these days. It's a waste of time.