Anarchism

Yup no tyranny except for everyone that disagrees with me. Then we kill them. Look at how un-tyrannical we are.

We make no secret of it. No liberty for the ennemies of liberty.

And you can't see the "we" is a tyranny too? Some self-awareness please.

It's not though. The coercion involved leave people more free than they would be without it.

So a permanent mob rule with internal purges... sounds great.

I guess if you define freedom in your own narrow terms, sure.

...

>this is your brain on antifa

Literally living like hippies, niggers and varg

Are you some kind of relativist ?

What ? Did you believe that we wanted liberty only to better accept servitude ? That we would just provide on demand the rope to hang us with?

t. jew

I think that the second the law is removed people like you will lose everything. A militia will arrive at your door and they will rape your family and take every little possession you have that is worth even the slightest amount, and as you look up at both barrels of the shotgun you will really really wish that the police still existed.

How ironic holy shit

Can you feel freedom now comrade?
>Yes
>Yes
>Yes
choose one

If we managed to get rid of the police we can also get rid of the other militias.
The revolution is the hard part, but if we're talking about what comes after, then we're assuming anarchists have the power to defend themselves.

So let me guess this straight.
You don't like tyranical institutions
So you Shut them down
Create a mob rule were people who disagree who said mob rule get fucked and somehow this is better than the state I am living where I can disagree with the evil state and at most get arrested.

>Oh, so the anarchists are the ones organising the private armies.
>Oh golly I hope they can all be trusted and that none of them develop any kind of ambitions.
It's like every post is more retarded than the last, holy shit.

we would post a list

Dana, your day to be a doctor is monday
Bradley, you are the police chief on thursdays and fridays
Candance, you handle farming our food on tuesday
Tom, youre in charge of mass industrial output on sunday, got it?

Ok, everyone good?

oh, and i forgot, on wednesday we SMOKE ahah

>people who disagree get fucked
More precisely, people who want to rule over others get fucked. Other disagreements are tolerated. Also, as much as possible, the getting fucked part involves the minimum amount of violence required.
If some guy steps on a crate and start telling people to stop masturbating we won't kill him. Maybe push him off the crate at worst.

It doesn't take a sociologist to realize when some guy is starting to assume authority over others.

When your definition of rule is not share everything, that's pretty shitty

It might not be so bad, but it is not my definition, nor that of most anarchists.

Hierarchy is literally a requirement for management of large scale complex systems like that

Whoops, someone has authority, anarchy undone

Prove it.

>anarcho-archism

There are no effective hospitals, corporations, armies, etc. that are both large enough to provide their services in a modern civilization, and do not have a leadership structure with no element of hierarchy, or no authority figures.

You may be able to find some counter examples, but the fact would still remain that modern civilization never emerged until the advent of private ownership, hierarchical leadership of groups, and governments with a monopoly on the use of force to enforce laws. Only when those things were introduced were people able to create the large, complex societies we have today.

>the getting fucked part involves the minimum amount of violence required.
According to who nigga? The mob mentality ain't a rational one. The guy saying stop masturbation, could be killed off if the mob wishes. Since Theres no law neither rights neither the institutions to enforce those things, a punishment would be set on arbitrary wishes of the mob rather than a rational anwser.
Theres arbitrary shit even in codified system of laws a the mob law would be even more arbitrary if they wish

anarchist could work in small nigger tier communes not in whole nations or cities. The more citizens the harder it becomes

Sure, I'd prefer that so they don't have to interact with the civilized world

What do you mean? Anarchists had property rights and the idea of ownership as a core principle

Hate not had whoops

>How would stuff like hospitals,electricity and collective traffic etc work in a anarchist society?
It wouldn't. Read Hobbes' Leviathan

ONLY THE STRONGEST WILL SURVIVE

There isn't a civilized world anymore. We are all varg tier working our ass sharing the product and doing our roles

>Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer.
Listening to the doctor's orders about illness doesn't give him power over you

and dying of preventable diseases lmao

I'm not talking about the power of experts over those who they provide services to, i'm talking about people in leadership and administrative positions in large, complex organizations. A large hospital that services a lot of people cannot be efficiently run with a horizontal decision making structure

Essentially its a cycle of no progress. A small commune can work specifically because all the people there have made the conscious choice to adhere to the "rules" of Anarchy. If you add more people, say an entire city, your choices are basically purge or purge, otherwise the system falls down. This is why most communist regimes begin with mass purges.

>modern civilization never emerged until the advent of private ownership, hierarchical leadership of groups...
It also never emerged before monotheistic religions, slavery, or before syphillis. Just because something preceded something doesn't prove that it was necessary to it.
If we are using hierarchy in hospitals it is mostly out of tradition and because it fits with the rest of society, not because of an accurate assessment of the most efficient ways to administrate such a structure.

According to the definition and the value of liberty.
We want to stop only the actions that restrain the liberty of others. As long as possible, we want to preserve that man's liberty to do whatever else, because we value liberty.
Killing should be an option to keep for times when less coercitive methods are insufficient.

As for who controls the people to avoid irrational movements, the people themselves. Most folks are actually pretty reasonable and benevolent, when they have no excuse not to be (as provided by hierarchical structures).

Not really no. They oppose private property as a sacred right, but generally are okay with exclusive use. If you have a house, they recognize that's it is okay for you to live in it exclusively. It's when you want to rent it, for example, that others get a say in what happens.

>Most folks are actually pretty reasonable and benevolent, when they have no excuse not to be (as provided by hierarchical structures).
And the people who aren't reasonable or benevolent should be forced to be by the state in a consistent and fair way, as it would protect the freedoms of others in a manner that is in no way arbitrary or logistically uncontrollable.

What you're describing is a naive utopia where human beings can be rationalized with 100% of the time. You cannot rationalize with everybody 100% of the time because there are people who are willfully ignorant or completely opposed to your rationale. Anarchist societies collapse when you expect human greed and stupidity to evaporate.

And as the quote already implied, these 'leaders' can be listened to with regards to running said organizations but not have power over you. Just like the doctor.

You geniuenly seemed to never read or heard of any anarchism's terminology, let alone their arguments

>According to the definition and the value of liberty.
Which is not written in a law neither enforce, only by the mob who would used at will. Since its ok as long as the majority agrees
>We want to stop only the actions that restrain the liberty of others. As long as possible, we want to preserve that man's liberty to do whatever else, because we value liberty.
No, You value liberty and your own definition of liberty, the mob would not be so willing to asked your definition about what liberty means
>Most folks are actually pretty reasonable and benevolent
Thats very naive Rousseau.

I'm not following. How can someone own a house in anarchy? Does someone randomly say I AM GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE and just do it? Does he have to rely on only himself to build the house? If he gets help, does he have to return the favor? So many questions

>So many questions
Then read some anarchist text? This isn't /pol/ where people will spoonfeed you with their ideology in bite size greentext or infographs

I don't get it. The functioning of a society has to sort of tick by in the background. You can't call a fucking referendum every time you want to buy carrots from the nearest town.

Also, if someone comes into my house and steals my bread while I'm not there, what happens?

yeah you fucking retard just read "Homeowning for anarchists (6th edition). What are you, retarded?

man this is weird. we obviously have (other) marxists on Veeky Forums, no anarchists? tf?

Read how anarchist Catalonia worked when Orwell was fighting in Spain. Read up on how modern anarchist/socialist communes work. Look into groups like the ELZN and how they work. Read the bread book.

has anyone here read anarchist lit?

It is so clear that you just want to shit on anarchism without engaging it honestly. At least read Max Striner's The Ego and its Own before you shitpost again

>has anyone here read anarchist lit?
I've read Mutual Aid. Does that count.

I'll read more if you can convince me that No State > Small State without appealing to emotion.

Go!

It's anarchy. There are no real rules and there's no real way to say "This is how things would work."
Which is why anarchism is generally considered a ridiculous ideology for angsty teenagers.

anarchy =/= no rules

>vigilanteeism is the same thing as having rules

Right. Just the unwritten rules """the collective""" agrees on. Big difference (that's sarcasm btw).

Downsizing the state doesn't remove its absurdity of its existence. If anything 'Small State' is the meme here

Liberty is a quite simple notion.
Even an insane mob would have a hard time ignoring the contradiction between killing and minimal coercion.

You can press both by saying the primary enforcer of private property rights is the State

Argument is contingent on the idea of a state being absurd, please elaborate.

People still work and thar voluntarily

There's several possibilities. This sort of detail has to be left to the decisions of the people involved, and cannot be put into doctrine before the revolution.

Do anarchists consider it immoral to have patriarchal control over the women in their lives? If so, what's to stop an anarchist from his woman cucking him?

Not quite following which side of the argument you are on, are you claiming mob rule is rational? Buddy watch some news stories from Africa.

Mutual Aid is a decent start, yep.

I'll give your challenge a start, but do note I'm kind of fine with a state existing (however small) to establish socialism, unlike anarchists. I'm very, very partial to anarcho-syndicalism though.

As far as why anarchists think no state > small state, it has to do with hierarchy. And not just in the "i dun wunt some1 tellin me wut to do" pleb-tier kind of freedom, but it has to do with how hierarchal relationships play out historically and in society. One of the biggest glaring problems that result due to hierarchy just EXISTING (be it a big or small state, a big or small capitalist business, so on) is the eventual disconnect between the material, living conditions of those who reside at the bottom of the hierarchy and those who reside at the top, meaning over time even if a small state miraculously manages to not grow into a bigger state, the conditions between the two groups WILL change and develop to the point to where those at the top are unfit to lead due to their disconnect with the rest of the people. In a way, you can say this is also why eventually all states GROW or aim to expand.

In order to stop this, it's obvious we just don't let this sort of hierarchal relationship with the state form in the first place.

Think of it as Hegels absolite society where there iss no more room left for change

>no room for change
Hostile foreign and domestic powers would disagree.

No shit. The state's job is to make sure the citizens don't get fucked up by random assholes who want to "redistribute" their stuff.

A very brief explanation is that the State is basically something that doesn't materially exist, calls its violence law and an individual's a crime to defends the property of some people

You were supposed to say something stupid I could easily mock, now I have to consider things.

What a prick.

The doctor does not run the hospital, he doesn't order medical supplies, he doesn't communicate with skilled nursing facilities to discharge patients, he doesn't keep the floors and bathrooms clean, he also in fact does not do the medical interventions in most cases, instead he orders his staff to do it for him so he can support more patients.

>No shit. The state's job is to make sure the citizens don't get fucked up by random assholes who want to "redistribute" their stuff.
>their
Yea, I don't think you know what 'private property' is

>calls its violence law
The people call it law, not the state. It's the only hope common people have of achieving justice.
You're acting as if the state exists with no accountability to the people. A BAD state might do this but it's isn't an intrinsic value of a state.

>You're acting as if the state exists with no accountability to the people
And you are acting as if the state can exist with total accountability to the people

Regardless the point is not about accountability, but to point out the hypocrisy of the violence the state wields is somehow justified while the individual is not.

But Theres isn't a way to exactly know how the mob would behave or think. Humans can be very irrational they wouldn't behave rationally 100% of the times or believe the same think. What you think for example in my country when a somebody robs shit the people holds a rational discution about what is the proper punishment and if the man is innocent or guilty? Does he steals because he is hungry? Diying? Fun?
No they beat the shit out of him. Trial over.
Pic related no trial at all

Because the state needs a monopoly of force in order to enforce law, that is given by the people implicitly.

>violence the state wields is somehow justified while the individual is not.
Individual violence is often chaotic and irrational compare to the state violence and judgment, but I wont play devil lawyer the state can be pretty irrational after all the people controls the violence (cop)

>given by the people implicitly.
The state just asumes this, you cant literraly escape it

Again that doesn't undermine what I said. People's consent for the state to commit violence on other people or themselves doesn't magically change that the fact it is still using violence. And that is somehow okay while individual using violence is somehow a crime

It is devil advocate. I do think both are chaotic and irrational though. But lets say individuals' violence suddenly more orderly and rational than the State, would people committing violence be acceptable to you? What property of the State gives it the right to commit violence? The fact that it doesn't exist?

>while individual using violence is somehow a crime
Is not, at least in democracies to invididual can interfiere when his shit like property, life, rights are being attacked by somebody you can even use violence if others people lifes are in danger.
Not shit like shooting a cop because he told me not to shit on the stretts

Of course there will be some failures.

But people in my country don't usually beat up thieves. Assuming they are not inherently different from your people, it proves that the use of violence and the occasional descent into irrationality depends on culture and the material situation.
We can act on these to increase the probability of this or that behaviour.

it would likely work in a collective of doctors organized by the doctors/nurses in the building who decided what does what. it would just be collectively run without oversight of the government.

i feel like his is stateist central.

>
It's literally the best way to live.

t. techno-shaman

Is this any different than the communist or fascist ideal? I don't think it is. Maybe we are all being called back to our roots in Nature...

Unfortunately needlessly nitpicking over semantics is not an argument. Just because some people uses the violence like the State would do undermine my argument. You and I both know that violation of the law usually involves violence or deceit

I don't know using law may help and a state and their institutions to enforce such law.
A came from a country with a codify sistem sort like da rules. A person has rights, a trial and if proven guilty the punishment is written in da rules according to their offense so no arbitrary punishments like lynching da nigga. It also has fuck up shit and aint always rational but its more rational than a mob rule that at least in my country the only solution its to cut niggas troaths before the cops show up

How its semantics? You said individual violence is for the state a crime a told you that thats not the case since the state reconices instances where you can use violence and the only moment it punish people its when such violence its unfair or dangerous according to the law

>when such violence its unfair or dangerous according to the law
And it is the section of crime that I am talking which is, surprise surprise, the majority of the violence committed

>individuals' violence suddenly more orderly and rational than the State, would people committing violence be acceptable to you?
Yes, if it leads to more reasonable punishment and better solutions its ok
>What property of the State gives it the right to commit violence?
The law, the state is regulated by laws he cannot do whatever the fuck he wants, he is ordered in a more rational way than people are with valances and contra valances, the statue is under the presure of the law and the constitution is not perfect but better than the subjective mob which justice is a maleable thing not a solid written rule

like they have always been run, albeit with more horizontal forms of organisation.
This ain't primitivism, it ain't about doing away with everything existing.

I am Sorry but I don't understand what you are triying to tell me.
The states commits violence yes its sometimes irrational and excesive yes but its less excesive than the mob

>The law, the state is regulated by laws he cannot do whatever the fuck he wants, he is ordered in a more rational way than people are with valances and contra valances
The State makes the laws, you know that right?

Both of you do not seem to understand (apart from legislature and judiciary processes) is the quote "The State’s behavior is violence, and it calls its violence “law”; that of the individual, “crime.” seeks to state that the State is an entity built on violence and the hypocrisy of moralizing said violence while demonizing individual violence.