When and how you realize that anarchism is just a meme and will never work?

...

>mfw crassus was the first ancap

When i realized that the basic social unit in nature is not the individual but the tribe.

Complex power structures and hierarchies are fundamental to human nature.

When population grow to a size where the community is not one intimately familiar and closely related unit, leaders become distant from all memebers of their group, and care only about their immediate family and friends within the larger population. Altruism breaks down in nonhomogenous communities with k
Large populations.

Ultimately all forms of government are one: the only difference between "anarchy" and absoluteism is population size. The only constant is human nature and all that matters is power for yourself. Power is always power regardless of government and it allows you to survive and reproduce.

There needs to be one of these for anarcha-feminism saying "When your womyn-only commune gets invaded and raped en masse by a neighbouring gang of bandits". Sadly no MSpaint on phone ;_;

...

Maybe you should read Stirner

...

Naw, I get my daily dose of internet memes already.

Wow it's almost like Stirner never claimed to be an anarchist and existing states are basically unconscious unions of egoists anyway.

Stirner deals with the individual vs the group dynamic from the point of view that the group is the basic social unit.

>what is a union of egoists

Your leaders are less spooked than you think.

It can work alongside the state, otherwise the negative effects of anarchy just occur within borders, see : crime

not an argument

The state exists to justify amorality

Prove me wrong
You literally can't

"what works" isn't "what's right"

>pointing out that your opponent had no argument besides a logical fallacy isn't an argument

wew lad. enjoy being deFOO'd.

I reject your implicit axiom that morality and amorality are even real things to begin with. The state simply possesses a monopoly on force that enables it to quickly put down violent opposition that would otherwise engulf society, as happens in any power vacuum. Do you even Hobbes, bro?

>moral relativism

I don't even know what you're trying to imply. All I did was recommend user read Stirner.

An over-idealistic ambition that fails to create any kind of workable society is not desirable for anyone. Famine and warfare aren't just persuaded away by moral arguments.

>moral antirealism is moral relativism

This shit again. There's more than two ethical theories in the world, faggot.

Like I'm gonna learn the difference, nerd

All I was implying was in my post

>nerd being an insult in any form post-2005

And your ignorance vindicates your complete lack of education or logical consistency how? Anarchists are a tiny ideological minority. You'll need to learn actual argumentation if you want any kind of future, because that faggy NAP of yours is a weak point that basically resigns you to failure otherwise.

not an argument

Yes, and I was suggesting you fail to understand Stirner yourself. Power is no spook. I support the state because I'd rather not get raped by rednecks, niggers and exmilitary vets that would dominate under anarchy.

okay

I never implied anything of the sort. You seem to be easily spooked. I recommended Stirner because it was directly related to user's line of thought, and many of his ideas get overlooked because of the spook meme.

I don't understand what anarchism is supposed to actually be.

Marxism is understandable and has a degree of logic behind it...but wtf is anarchism supposed to be exactly?

fun fact: in france, you can actually do this legally. It happens at least once a year.

the legal owner of the house will call the cops, like the libertarians have taught him, but the cops have no power to know who is the real owner. Even better, if the new owner has few days to pull this off, he can change the contract regarding the provider for electricity, and then show the cops the new bill with his name on the address of the house.

It takes years for the legal owner to get back legally the house. Generally, the house is trashed when he gets it back.

Because its impossible. Human nature always brings someone to power. There will literally never not be someone with superior power. Name 1 place that has existed without any government and had no war or power struggles. You can't, those places dont exist.
We need government, because if its fucked at least we can fuck it in our favor. Cut your losses and get with a blended democracy.

When I realized that there is no such thing as progress without hierarchical leadership.

A human acts, talks and thinks according
-to what he desires
-to what he thinks is expected from other humans

Normies cling to their fantasy of liberty, especially liberty through the fantasy of ''personal identity'' hyped a few centuries back by liberals and libertarians, but only to support their other fantasy of ''nation''; and normies believe that to be free just means to do what they desire, what pleases them, while still believing that they are not egotistical by fantasizing some rules in order to ''better people'', ''for the common goods'' and any other promise of a better future to people who do not currently embrace these rules [the most reticent people will just be put in some jail].
There is also the liberty through ''personal identity'' as actually the execution of the desires, into having the means to realize the desires. Liberals and libertarians promise this liberty-as-means to the middle class, and make this legal, but of course this promise is just here to appeal to the pleb. Liberals also fear, because they know, that the pleb actually do not care enough, like in daily life, like Eichmann as cog or the last man or the guy form the novel the stranger, about their fantasy of enlightenment. These people know that it is cute to recall the ideals of their enlightenment when the tax seasons starts, plus a bit of fear to end up in jail if the taxes are not paid in time, but nobody loves to pay taxes, even after 200 years of liberals in power....

Anarchist love the idea that to be free is to follow their desire, without being killed by other people who want to follow their desires. They know that the rules are created by other people who are not as special as they think they are and they know that even the people who create rules manage to miss to complete their fantasy.
There are also anarchist who believe that ''everybody will be nice to each other'' (like the liberals love to think once the pleb is educated, free of direct charge, according to liberal principles') without these seemingly arbitrary rules found in any society, but of course this holds only for small villages at best. and the mentality of the people in this villages has nothing to do with the enlightenment. IT is more like the Hunter-gatherer where, if possible, everybody is a vegetarian because it is wrong to kill animals, retaining as much as ease of life from the modern world, like roads, cars, heaters, windows, tv.
These people fail to see that humans are hedonistic and will always strive
-for more hedonism
-for thinking that they are better than animals, that they are not mere hedonist thinking of realizing their own desires

These people fail to see that People need an ideal to justify their hedonism.

Having a government is in my interest, and the spook meme gets Stirner more attention if anything.

>waaah anarchy has never worked

You are really dense, aren't you? I never said the government was a spook. user mentioned that society was man's natural state, which is why I said to read Stirner. Of course the spook meme gets Stirner attention. I said as much. I said it overshadows his other ideas.

You seem to be offended at the very name of Stirner, and react very poorly when he is mentioned. His ideas extend beyond "everything is a spook kek" but as expected you're stuck on the spook meme.

...

That's trotskyism

It's because most '''''anarchists''''' don't actually care about anarchy but have understood that its politically unpopular to call yourself a Marxist.

All those societies lasted only for a few years, they clearly failed.

bjump