No you weren’t. At least not in my opinion. I was just continuing the thought not refuting anything you said.

You think the election posts were low quality? I was going more of a clean minimalist vibe instead. Got any tips?

I guess you could see it that way. Just the “opinion rather than relevancy” sounds so appropriate to the downvote topic that I assumed it was that.

If you want I’ll remove it.

This is why I would disable them. Or call them dislikes and make them add to the score. as it’s still an opinion.

I never even said to not vote. They probably thought “fuck the state” means “don’t vote”. And they are connected but not the same.

The sidebar should cover that question. In case it doesn’t here are some terms I think fall under that umbrella: socialist, anti-capitalist, anarchist.

what did I do wrong?

I think it’s non-leftists. As that is the standard in this sub.

Lets ditch base10 entirely and use 0(freezing)-216(boiling). that means 0-1000 in base6.

you control the lesser power (individual) with a bigger power (the “ourselves”).

to quote: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca213

anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose “collectivism” and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them.

While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life

Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its ideas of “absolute” freedom of the individual which is constrained by others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists and grows.

In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics.

The link goes into more detail.

It’s not like humans didn’t arise from more anarchist structures.

A Definition for a term I’m about to use:
Archy - Hierarchy, Rule, structure of command and subordination, opposite of anarchy.

How did humans “rise” from anarchist structures? I wouldn’t call whats going on right now any better than the pre-archic societies. Those societies were destroyed because they didn’t have the structures to protect themselves against archy anarchy isn’t just no archy, it’s conscious opposition to archy. Now that we understand archic structures and their influence we can start opposing it. Pre-archic societies couldn’t

having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs

Why would you need mobs? often times a single other person would be enough to stop/deter anti-social behavior.

as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power

Who controls that bigger power and what’s stopping them from becoming corrupt? There is no bigger power than the state and police is the state. You can’t have anything bigger. As soon as you have representative democracy the people will go from humans to a resource. They will be grown and molded to not care about their society and just root for their team. Governance isn’t something you can delegate to others. It makes you lazy and means you will stop thinking about the actual problems and start fighting with anyone who disagrees with you.

Representational democracy does not work. The state is a living system that has interests of it’s own and those will always be prioritized over the citizens. Sooner or later every state devolves into authoritarianism. All the while screwing over anyone who wants to live without it.

I will so thank you!

I’m surprised that an anarchist position is getting downvoted in this community. I guess the libs came to party.

Thank you for your insightful comment. :)

ACAB!

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Anarchy. I’m an anarchist. I’m talking about anarchy. People do not need to be controlled/enforced/governed. We are perfectly capable of organizing a society ourselves. Stopping violence should not be the responsibility of a special group but everyone. Social pressure is more powerful than direct violence. Otherwise the police would not have such a cushy job.

What would be the motive to write or follow laws?

No one needs to write laws. Custom is already a ruleset that most people in a society follow. You don’t need laws on top of that. It’s unnecessary and creates cases where the right thing cannot be done because it’s illegal. Government creates a ton of unnecessary busywork that most people do not need to concern themselves with. What does the government do that you couldn’t do with free association and an empowered populus?

Do you follow laws just because you’re afraid of the police? Or is it because of the social pressure to not cause a fuss. Do you need rules to be written down on a piece of paper for you to follow them? I think not. I’ve followed a lot of “made up” rules because I understand these rules make my life better. Human beings are capable of working together without needing someone else to tell them how to live their life. We did it for millennia before archy clawed it’s way into every society (by colonizing the anarchic ones because they were “primitive”)

It’s not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function

Yes it is. You cannot have police that doesn’t abuse their power. If you have a position in society that gives people power, It’s the power-hungry that fill them. Everyone that doesn’t want to dictate other peoples lives will not fill those positions. so sooner or later they are going to be filled by people who want power and nothing else. It’s no coincidence archy keeps devolving into fascism and totalitarianism. It’s inevitable. Society elevates people who want power so you end up with people who believe they are god and can do no wrong.

No. We do not need cops. The police will always be a corrupt hand of state violence. As long as there are cops (as in special people who are allowed to use violence) in any form they will ultimately become corrupt. As long as law is enforced it is not equal, and it will never protect “the people”. The people are the only ones that can protect “the people”. You don’t need cops, you need everyone to start policing people around them. That is the only way everyone gets protection.

ACAB! All power to all the people!

Left-Right (Left-Right) and Authoritarian-Libertarian (up-down).

I probably should have put a check on the blue and remove the third option. That would have made it clearer.

Nothing wrong with snoozing. Just don’t expect it to fix anything.

All murders happen because of emotional (killing someone in anger), economical (Theft gone wrong) or psychological (Doesn’t realize it’s wrong) reasons. none of these is prevented by sticking the murderer in a box after the murder.

All of these are prevented by building strong social network to manage any harmful impulses before something happens, which is something any reasonable anarchist would agree with.

Also If you think the list is incomplete then feel free to give another example.

Oh yeah also political assassinations and wars. But your comment already addresses those.

I think a better wording is that anarchy is naive. And I’d rather be naive than accept that this is the best we can come up with, because that’s depressing.

I do not want an anarchist revolution that forces anarchy onto the entire society. That would not work. The people wouldn’t accept it. I want a system where anarchism can be implemented alongside other systems so everyone, me included, can find their spot, their best way to live. I do not think everyone is an anarchist, and can live in an anarchist system. People have different values and those values impact their politics. I just want a space where anarchy can exist without being destroyed. If a person is fine working 9-5 for 5 days a week for just enough money to pay rent, buy food and maybe sometimes some clothes then that’s fine. I would rather die.

The entire first two paragraphs of your statement is exactly what the CCP and USSR attempted to set up but it failed miserably due to efficiency issues, They then consolidated in to sudo fascism. How many attempts do you need to see that people in aggregate cannot form that level of trust in society or social engagement?

I do not believe that’s what the USSR was trying to do, but because I wasn’t there I cannot say for certain. All I can say is that if they did try to do it they failed to stop authoritarians getting to power and that was on them, not on the ideology. If you try to force a bunch of people who do not care about running their own lives and give them the power to run their own lives they will walk up to the first person telling them what to do and mindlessly do it. This is why an anarchist revolution has to be cultural as well as political. People need to want it, otherwise they won’t get it.

A hundred years have past since then. Humanity has gone from an agrarian society to a post-industrial (robots) society. I think the circumstances have changed enough to make any assumptions based on past revolutions inaccurate.

Anarchism does not provide robust power to protect minorities so it does not matter if it does not allow discrimination, it cannot prevent it

The community prevents it. If someone is acting like a dick people come together and deal with it. Together. Anarchism does not provide this power because it is up to the community to decide how it works.