That is literally what you always get without a state. The majority rule by mob rule
We would have enforcment agencies to uphold our rights
Not necessarily
It's majority rule either way
One is just less shitty
if anarchistic societal law structure were done well enough, democracies would be prevented
The enforcement agencies will enforce the will of whoever pays better
^
See: Blackwater.
Which is gonna be the majority
No you would choose which rights you want to be enforced and it would be mutiplied through out the country
Natural selection will push for more charitable ones over time if the people like them enough due to their own self interests influncing the choice and social darwisnism coming along
How would you do this?
it is possible
WHO chooses what rights?
The majority will choose
"We" is very... opaque.
With anarchy you cant enforce your sets of beliefs on others
The people with the money?
The majority?
in a state it happens all the time
Again, you'd do so by by votes, census, polls, apportionment, self-ownership, and through individual liberties..
This is kinda why I don't take Anarcy seriously as a position. It's just authoritarianism except worse.
Anyone here an individualist besides me?
as long as they don't completely conflate the lattert
Me
Hearing a lot of collectivism
MOI
@Jaz (Raisu) ME DADDY
Most of us are individualists.
Really huh?
@LordCaledus CAN YOU PROVE THAT!?
We're just not extreme individualists.
then why do you want a state which is above the individual?
The only way it could become authoritarian is if democracies were to form
same with corporatocracy formation
So, as an individualist... if there is someone who disagrees with the laws of society that the majority want, what do you do?
@Maw?
"extreme"! you either value the individual or not
