You can choose one LIVING person as the absolute leader of a world government

>anarchists have rulers, they just don't have rulers.

Really? You're this fucked?
Say you're doing a class project. There is someone who is a natural leader -- the most intelligent and confident one, probably. Is he going to force you with violence to do certain tasks? Are you threatened with jail time for not doing them? This is part of the distinction between a ruler and a leader.

>anarchists have leaders, they just don't have leaders.

>absolute leader of a world government
I would prefer not to.

Macron. France finally found their Reagan/Thatcher. Wish we had him.

Do you see no problem with the lack of a legal process?

fuck wh*Toid subhumans

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Any world government at this stage of humanity will require heavy military force to keep in line, it would effectively be a de facto junta, therefore we might as well put a good military leader in charge of the whole operation.

In truth, I do not see how that answers my question. It is quite rude, as well.

Myself.

I needed to find a job anyway.

This guy

Me, and then I immediately dissolve such a retarded idea.

Because Political Anarchism is the removal of a central state, not organization as a whole. See Catalonia for an example.

Me. Fuhrer for Life.

>comparing a class project to a society

The slaughter of human beings would commence 72 hours after inception.

If you would keep the legal order, that legal order would need to be enforced, which means coercion. At that point an anarchist country would just be a normal decentralized country, or would fall apart into differing legal orders (which would necessarily mean differing polities - it is impossible for a society to function according to two differing legal orders) which determine their own relation to each other. Which would again be like a normal collection of countries.

If you would do away with the legal order itself, which is the only thing that could create a "society of free associations", then you open an entire Pandora's box of problems.

Obligatory

Anarchists don't always believe you should abolish the state overnight. Its an end goal to be reached.

...

Thank you for your support.

Kill yourself, you filthy socialist.

despotic society

...

>>>/reddit/

Utalitarian meritocratic memeocracy

society is a large scale class project

Some random Slovenian farmer, just to see how it goes.

Hitler or Lenin.

>the go to insult of pseudo-intellectuals
>'heh, you don';t really know, you just think you know, looks like your entire perspective has been discredited, I win again'

I wan't my powerful papal state just like in the good old days

Watch him ban degeneracy.

I too am voting for this guy

He liked to take the virginity of young boys.

Pedophilia isn't degenerate.

>>>/gallows/

Donald Trump

>anarchists have leaders
What?

Listen the fact anarchist organize is paradox as anarchy is no government no rule no rules NO ORDER just humans doing their own thing, and if humans organize it is no longer anarchy but micro oligarchy. The only true anarchistic creatures are solitary predators.

...

>>libertarian socialist
>>libertarian socialist
>libertarian socialist
it works post scarcity but only with absolute adhearance to property rights (and if its not already there) and the path to voluntryism through free market dispute resolution organisations aka anarchism but anyway. ud see a huge reduction in population along the way as the retards are basically culled off via one method or another

>a literal hippy

>anarchists have leaders, they just don't have rulers
>we're not cannibals, we just eat people

Jesus of Nazareth.

Surprised nobody else showed this.

Me, but I warn you that I will do things purely for my own amusement

Don't you understand the difference between an authority you have an obligation to obey (the obligation being codified as law and sanctioned) and an authority you have no obligation to obey (you can choose not to without sanction)? Anarchism is flawed enough without you misrepresenting it desu.

came here to post more or less the same as this guy.

Yeah, I agree with this guy.
Of course, that idiot in the OP would be a horrible leader, but anarchism doesn't really mean "no leaders."

He wouldn't accept, but I think Mattis'd do a decent job

It's amazing how often this bunch of nonsense gets reposted.

Zizek because fuck it, lost hope for this shithole of a planet
I just want to witness some radical change and a communist revolution sounds like it might be entertaining

>Libertarian
>Socialist
Pick one.

...

t. burgerland brainlet

t. David Horowitz

Don't you have a city to burn down, lemarcus?

And drumpf pisses on women

High Level Insider user

Why wouldn't I pick myself?

I can delegate functions to all the people I think are best for each job.