Is peaceful anarchy possible?

[formeruser12]

I know, but I’m not disavowing the existence of central authority. This version of anarchy isn’t without structure, that wouldn’t work, it does embrace decentralisation though, the level of centralisation we have now is insane, and if it is hijacked, as we have already seen, then everything is affected.

[formeruser12]

This is mostly regarding Charlie Kirk, which is a subject I don’t really care about, but it highlights the function of the media and towards the end aligns with my assessment of the billionaires.

Charlie Kirk: The Folklore Factory| Shahid Bolsen

[Jakob]

@MrAuthoritarian

@niallm12

Problems for anarchists:

1. What do you do with all the violent noncooperative nihilists that would rather steal, pillage, and take from you?
2. What do you with the individuals that have formed a government amongst themselves that wish to impose their form of government on you through territorial conquest?
3. How do you organize a society without laws and a central authority power structure?

This is why anarchism never lasts for very long which is why it is a very temporary form of existence. It’s also why statism is always inevitable.

1. Laws. Imprisonment. Punishment. Retaliation. I don’t think anarchy has to be the abolishment of such things, in fact I think they are always necessary in any society regardless.
2. Through the assembly of different otherwise separate groups which unite to confront a common foe.
3. I believe laws are necessary, as is a central power structure, however, that structure should be localised as opposed to governing multitudes over a vast area. Community leaders and enforcement officers on a local level. It would be a lot more personal than the current impersonal and largely detached system.

An obvious question is where will you get the land? You’ll have to conquer it from a country in order to be empowered to set your own laws. Ive always been friendly to the idea of anarchy, I would very much to live free from this insane superstate. But I think there are just too many people living on this planet. Every piece of fertile land has been contested for a long time.

Another question is who writes the laws and, given you favor centralized power structure, what prevents it from becoming a despotic society.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

The peaceful anarchists who are self-ruled by the golden rule all get assassinated or enslaved unless they become hermits who are isolated from the rest of the world, unless the (peaceful, else not genuine) conversion rate is higher than the rate of apostasy. There is a math to this, and no, I’m not doing it.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Ichthus77

Very extremely difficult to be a mountain man or hermit unless you have a lot of land that you posses as private property with the money to fund your own lifestyle.

There have been mountain men and hermits illegally squatting on public land in more recent years but as soon as they’re found out discovered they’re either thrown into jail or imprisoned.

Many, many such cases. Got to be damn near a ghost to live like that overtime undetected.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@MrAuthoritarian

illegally squatting on public land

An unjust law is no law at all, my dear Mr. Authoritarian.

The Wagies And The Modern Wage Slave

It isn’t new. Slavery just rebranded. I really don’t like how previews work: …except now they don’t even provide basic needs to the slaves. Or at least they’re trying not to.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Ichthus77

They really don’t want anybody to leave the controlled reservation. Participation is not optional, withdrawal from participation is not optional.

[formeruser12]

OK. I shouldn’t have posted that response, I fell into a trap of describing how things should be far into the future, when that isn’t at all what I was trying to achieve with the essay.

As far as I’m concerned, land is not needed. Laws are not needed. Centralised power structure is not needed. I wasn’t trying to address any of those things, I wasn’t trying to be the architect of some future society, I was merely providing suggestions on how to combat unfairness in the current system without changing one’s own life very much to achieve this.

My “recipe” just provided ideas on how to detach from the system to a certain degree, and harm those who exploit us the most. I want to get back to that, instead of being expected to describe how such a society would survive hundreds of years from now and what challenges it would face long after the old system had been swept away. I don’t know. It’s all hypothetical.

I’d like to go back to the essay itself, and for the reasoning in there to be evaluated instead of that reply where I got confused by the confusion.

As for preventing any other society from becoming a despotic society, do you mean a more despotic society than the one we have now?

[formeruser12]

Please allow me to respond to this again:

1. There wouldn’t be any, at least no more than there are now in society. What is there to steal from a small, largely invisible community?
2. There wouldn’t be any. It’s not planet of the apes, just a recipe for resistance.
3. You don’t. I’m not advocating organising a society, just peaceful resistance against the current one.

There, that’s better.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@MrAuthoritarian

They really don’t want anybody to leave the controlled reservation. Participation is not optional, withdrawal from participation is not optional.

Do what you can with what you have, as seen from an eternal frame, in war or peace. Anyone who thinks they aren’t a mere steward of what is God’s is more vulnerable than any exploitable resource.

[formeruser12]

Not much centralised power structure. No marauders. Collective acquisition of land.

Some of these communities have existed for quite a long time. Some might call them “hippie communes”. I call it examples of successful anarchy.

Intentional Communities in Scotland – Diggers and Dreamers

[formeruser12]

Alongside the math, there’s also a movie to describe it. It’s called “Mad Max 2”. You might be looking a weeeeeee bit further into the future than I was when I wrote this essay.

Why are the anarchists in my text going to get assassinated?

[Jakob]

@formeruser12

I got confused by the confusion.

Graceful retreat from an untenable position.

Your original quest of tighter value-selection is noble. The way of evolution, anentropic self-harmony. That includes discarding questions which are irrelevant at the moment.

@James S Saint

Rationality refers to the rationing of one’s actions or thoughts in accord to one’s goal. If a thought contains nothing that would affect one’s goal in any way, being rational means ignoring that thought because it has no position in any plan to be rationed into.

The conclusion C1 refers to the idea that if an affect exists, then it is inherent that the potential to have that affect must also exist. So even though we start with the notion that it is irrational to be concerned with anything void of affect, we have already inherently included (as per C1) that it must be rational to “also” be concerned with anything that has the potential-to-affect, to be later measured in terms of “PtA”.

Thus rational behavior involves;

1. attending to affecting that is currently going on, the present, and
2. attending to the potential for affecting, the situation that will lead to future affects.

The statement;
“The rationality is proposed as, even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time.”

is inherently proposing that the present situation that leads to future affects (the “potential-to-affect”) is not a pointless concern in the ontology because the current situation, the potential, directly implies the presence of affecting and in a sense, is a map concerning the current directions of affecting.

@Niall

As for preventing any other society from becoming a despotic society, do you mean a more despotic society than the one we have now?

No I just mean, also despotic.

[formeruser12]

You’re right. It was untenable, and misguided.

My definition of anarchy is not as a replacement system of governance, it’s a mechanism to oppose an unjust one.

What I proposed was not a recipe to build utopia, it was possible counter moves against a system which appears to hold all the cards.

What emerges after that is largely irrelevant in the context, if the system is weakened or change has been incited, then it’s job done.

[formeruser12]

Thank you for the quote. Might be a subject and author for further reading..

[futureone]

@formeruser12

I’m not sure you understand the purpose of open-source. It’s not to make money, at least not primarily, it’s actually an ideology that goes back to the 1970’s when computer scientists and hobbyists would share their solutions and creations freely, all wanting to find out what these machines could actually do. They’d all meet up and swap disks and do demonstrations, money was just something you needed to buy the hardware.

Bill Gates threw a huge spanner into that, and created proprietary software and locked it all down. I don’t deny the man’s intellectual prowess, and I don’t disagree that developers should be rewarded for their efforts, but at the end of the day, what he did was primarily for the benefit of one person. I personally believe he hampered the development of software in general, and monopolised it and purposefully stifled all competition.

Yes I know all that. Bill gates a greedy asshole sobeit. All i know is without him Microsoft products are going to shit. There shouldn’t be monopolies but nobody enforces the law. Even Capitalists know of the danger of monopoly. The rational compromise should be to put him in charge of tech, but not business…

Open source doesn’t pay the bills and it doesn’t get you a wife. And it just makes it harder for anyone else to earn a living. What open source does do is make it harder for evil corporations to strangle society. That’s a good thing I guess. I don’t know how I feel about patents. Too many patent trolls abusing the system. Patents were supposed to help the little guy, now they mainly seem to be about helping greedy corporations strangle society.

[futureone]

@formeruser12

1. Laws. Imprisonment. Punishment. Retaliation. I don’t think anarchy has to be the abolishment of such things, in fact I think they are always necessary in any society regardless.
2. Through the assembly of different otherwise separate groups which unite to confront a common foe.
3. I believe laws are necessary, as is a central power structure, however, that structure should be localised as opposed to governing multitudes over a vast area. Community leaders and enforcement officers on a local level. It would be a lot more personal than the current impersonal and largely detached system.

Maybe this would be considered regression, but ponder this, animals evolve most efficiently when present in smaller groups, the Galapagos Islands are a perfect example. Countries with populations under 50M are easier to manage, and are usually more prosperous (at least the citizens are).

I think the society we currently have works to a certain extent, but it’s not sustainable indefinitely, that’s for sure (and many people are just miserable). So what do we do? I say form the smaller communities now while we have a chance, it’s something to revert to and provides an alternative to the madness of endless growth and wasteful consumption.

Also, with regard to war and conflict, human nature makes these things hard to avoid, but it’s better for them to take place on a much smaller scale instead of the current death toll in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Large societies feel unnatural. Humans were meant to be small groups.

You are not an anarchist, you just want your own tribe with your own laws. A noble pursuit, but stop calling it “anarchy” cause that just confuses everybody.

[formeruser12]

@futureone

Open source doesn’t pay the bills and it doesn’t get you a wi

I install and support open source solutions. It pays the bills. You’re right about the wife though, but that just because I’m quite ugly.

[formeruser12]

No please don’t quote that response, I’ve already admitted it’s very flawed. I retract all of it..

[formeruser12]

I don’t want my own tribe with my own laws. I see anarchy as a method to fight the system, but not a permanent solution. That’s why the response is flawed..

I think you’re bang on about the groups though. Also because separate groups produce different outcomes, then the best outcome can be used as a model. If we’re all one big group, then what other outcomes do we have to compare to?