Yes I was agreeing with you.

I keep seeing it pop up everywhere as if there are attempts to legitimize it.

No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.

You can organize a response. The response does not need to remain organized after it’s accomplished what it’s purpose was.

Also no institutions in existence prevent violence, theft, extortion, abduction or human trafficking. They can only respond to it.

I haven’t seen the show, but peace without needing to enforce it is the ultimate goal.

There have been no institutions that protect against violence in an equitable way.

Anarcho-capitalism isn’t remotely anarchy. It’s fuedalism full stop.

Yes it is a mega democracy.

Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.

Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.

Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone’s dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn’t of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.

Hey! Those are excellent ways of describing it. I kind of neglected the fact that it’s democratic in the extreme. Everything is voted on.

And yes, the concept of a State is non-existent.

Ukraine has had a long history of it for example. It never quite died either. And even plays a role in today’s conflict against Russian invasion.

Right at the start of the 2022 offensive, everyone east of Kiev was making improvised weapons, barricades etc, because they knew Russia would roll over them before the Ukrainian Military had moved enough personnel to evacuate.

They didn’t do it because it was their job, they didn’t do it for a sense of Ukrainian pride. They did it because it was their home.

What? Where did you get that?

The trial part? I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.

Anarchists aren’t pacifists.

They would do what any collective would do against an invasion at that point. Shoot back. If they are greatly outnumbered, then, unfortunately that society collapses. Hopefully there are survivors who can spread the word amongst other collectives to improve the changes for the next one.

Anarchism is a philosophy, not a means of governing.

But any anarchist would tell you that all actions have consequences. In one scenario - where human trafficking is discovered, a group of anarchists might play Dredd to bring justice to the syndicate. That group would then face consequences and be subject to investigation by the community. It could even look like a trial.

To me, at least, you sound a lot more anarchist than you might realize.

I recommend reading up on some - Dorothy Day, Lucy Parsons, Noam Chomsky, Robert Wolff.

Remember it’s a philosophy, not a method of government.

Hence why I mention the communist thing.

Anarchy and communism have a LOT of overlap.

No, though some aspects are shared.

Liberalism has very different views in terms of economics.

If the group of racist homophobic people outnumber us, how did we form our collective? They weren’t anarchist to begin with. They aren’t entitled to our resources.

Yeah as soon as the word “force” comes into play, he’s not an anarchist.

A lot of anarchy depends on the concept of equity. If someone in particular is against the equity of his peers, then that individual would likely be kicked out of the collective for violating that tenet.

More than likely, the racist/homophobic individual was never allowed to join the group. If that racist/homophobe was a child raised in the anarchist society and held these views as an adult, then the real question becomes why did that individual form those beliefs if they were intolerable to the group. Action needs to be taken there.

That’s really more of what I’ve seen in the communist communities rather than anarchists.

But they too have a tendency of being all or nothing.

The ones who demand “social order” truly aren’t anarchist anyway. The whole point of anarchy is to approach an egalitarian community that rejects the idea of unearned authority.

I don’t like a lot of the self-proclaimed anarchists for that specific reason. They give the rest of us a really bad look. They miss the whole point of being anti-authoritarian, anti-heirchical, anti-coercisive, and anti-capitalist.

I understand why they are that way, I’m like 99% sure it’s a neurodivergent thing (black-and-white thinking, rejection of authority, failure to recognize social norms, we pretty much all do it to some degree, and some are much more obvious than others).

Like a doctor is an authority on health. Why? Because they earned it. They put their livelihood on the line by licensure and risk to avoid malprat. Governments where only a select few are voted for and the rest of the representation is all because of Republic stances rather than democratic ones are not deserving of authority.

Also, it might be that the anarchists you have met are not anarchists at all. It sounds much more like the communists I know.

I don’t think they’re quite fascist because of the economic difficreneces and social wellbeing policies.

But they are undoubtedly both authoritarian, and that’s pretty much the biggest problem because it practically makes the two identical.

As a software engineer, I fucking LOVE not talking to computers.

But I hate talking to the clients.