Let's talk about anarchy!

[decay]

But I am interested in you continuing to explain your position, if everyone else wants to be dicks, fuck 'em, ignore it.

i'm doing my best to explain and provide examples that serve as analogies, though it's making me want to rip my hair out at times.

let's present the idea of "passive anarchism". this is not calling for the active removal of local, state, or federal government, it's just the acknowledgement that they probably aren't going to be there when you need them (see: my previous statements about the cop i dated).

this is the moderate position in the camp, and the extremists will argue with you about it while mostly still respecting your position.

the difference between this and libertarianism *is* the community/tribe aspect; not to put too fine a point on it, but ayn rand never spent too much time writing or talking about that as a solution. why suggest that violence is the only solution for an absent government that has mostly absolved itself of its responsibilities?

[marshallnoise]

sigh. ok, i've used the term "socio-anarchist" more than once, trying to get you to understand that that's my particular flavor of ice cream. it's not everyone's; there are the hardline kids squatting in abandoned buildings and burning down condo developments. i don't take part in actions like that, partly because i don't need to to survive and have shelter, and partly because sometimes i think their actions are misguided (there are extremists in every camp). but i understand why they do.

the "socio-" prefix is because you need that element of community to make it work in practice rather than just theory.

does it help either of you to think of me as a "soft" anarchist? if you somehow derive pleasure from saying that makes me "not a real one", whatever floats your boat.

The socio- thing applied to anarchist has no real meaning though.

What is anarchist about crowd sourcing funds for veterinarian bills?

Squatting can be an anarchist act though.

According to the great Google:
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
noun: anarchy

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
   "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
   synonyms:lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
   
   
   
   antonyms:government, order
   
   
   • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
     
     
   
   
   
   
   

[decay]

sigh. ok, i've used the term "socio-anarchist" more than once, trying to get you to understand that that's my particular flavor of ice cream. it's not everyone's; there are the hardline kids squatting in abandoned buildings and burning down condo developments. i don't take part in actions like that, partly because i don't need to to survive and have shelter, and partly because sometimes i think their actions are misguided (there are extremists in every camp). but i understand why they do.

the "socio-" prefix is because you need that element of community to make it work in practice rather than just theory.

does it help either of you to think of me as a "soft" anarchist? if you somehow derive pleasure from saying that makes me "not a real one", whatever floats your boat.

[z31maniac]

This is not a problem that should be solved by anyone in the public sector. Moreover, their life-style choices and job choices mean certain things like, the inability to pay a $3000 cat health bill. I love cats, I have 4 of them with my wife. But as an accountant, I still couldn't afford a $3000 bill to fix my cat.

What you described as "socio-anarchism" isn't anarchism in the least. There is literally nothing anarchist about getting money from friends to help your cat's vet bills. Operating outside of government subsidies is not anarchism. Where do you come up with this idea?

I have to agree with Marshall on this one.

If you can't afford your particular proclivities, guess what? Don't have them. Is a health issue for a pet most likely unexpected and expensive, yep.


Unfortunately, which was not my wish, nearly everyone has taken this thread as an opp to attack you, which is not what I wanted. I wanted your genuine opinion/thoughts/etc on Anarchy.

I'm not even going to waste my time responding to everyone acting like jerks that aren't willing to engage, debate, and listen to the other side. They can all go back to their preferred poison.

But I am interested in you continuing to explain your position, if everyone else wants to be dicks, fuck 'em, ignore it.

[coldweatherblue]

Decay, that sounds like a community looking out for itself, which is great. It's also something that happens daily in communities all over the country, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the abolition of the federal government and private property.

I'm not a fan of the government and I think the majority of our taxes are wasted, but I also recognize the need for national security and the enforcement of laws to allow a safe and prosperous society.

BTW I'm not religious anymore but grew up in a religious household; the system you describe is something that happened hundreds of time in our church, members of the congregation would band together and help people out if someone got sick, house burned down, etc. Same thing happens in my neighborhood, if a tree falls down across and the homeowner doesn't have a chainsaw, someone else will come chop up the tree.

That's a community looking out for one another, not traditional anarchism.

[marshallnoise]

*sigh* that was as an example of community stepping in where government has failed... i think you're being intentionally obtuse.



why is violence your first go-to?

here's another real-life concrete answer to that problem:

my friends Drea and Mike (she bartends and he works security at the club i play, and he's a musician as well) don't have kids and don't want them- their cat is an emotional support animal, but there's no healthcare for pets option i'm aware of.

their cat got an intestinal blockage that required surgery at the vet to the tune of about $3000. they're not pulling in the kind of salaries you get working in tech, so this was a big ask for them.

due to the social nature of their jobs, i suggested she start a gofundme because they've both got a ton of friends. most people chipped in $5-20, but a few went up to $100. our little musical corner of the world got their vet bills covered. that is socio-anarchism; a little tribe banding together to watch out for each other. and not even for someone's kid getting sick... for a fucking cat.

where you're all having a disconnect is there's a difference between the video-game preconception of anarchy that you *want* to have an argument with, and how operating outside of the government to the greatest degree possible actually works in the real world.

This is not a problem that should be solved by anyone in the public sector. Moreover, their life-style choices and job choices mean certain things like, the inability to pay a $3000 cat health bill. I love cats, I have 4 of them with my wife. But as an accountant, I still couldn't afford a $3000 bill to fix my cat.

What you described as "socio-anarchism" isn't anarchism in the least. There is literally nothing anarchist about getting money from friends to help your cat's vet bills. Operating outside of government subsidies is not anarchism. Where do you come up with this idea?

[decay]

You live in a violent, poverty-stricken area with failing infrastructure and because a few people in the neighborhood give out free tacos you think we would all live in harmony if there were no laws.

*sigh* that was as an example of community stepping in where government has failed... i think you're being intentionally obtuse.

What happens to healthcare for those who cannot pay? Are you going to use the threat of violence to force hospitals to provide free medical care for uninsured patients?

why is violence your first go-to?

here's another real-life concrete answer to that problem:

my friends Drea and Mike (she bartends and he works security at the club i play, and he's a musician as well) don't have kids and don't want them- their cat is an emotional support animal, but there's no healthcare for pets option i'm aware of.

their cat got an intestinal blockage that required surgery at the vet to the tune of about $3000. they're not pulling in the kind of salaries you get working in tech, so this was a big ask for them.

due to the social nature of their jobs, i suggested she start a gofundme because they've both got a ton of friends. most people chipped in $5-20, but a few went up to $100. our little musical corner of the world got their vet bills covered. that is socio-anarchism; a little tribe banding together to watch out for each other. and not even for someone's kid getting sick... for a fucking cat.

where you're all having a disconnect is there's a difference between the video-game preconception of anarchy that you *want* to have an argument with, and how operating outside of the government to the greatest degree possible actually works in the real world.

[coldweatherblue]

sure, if you pre-suppose that every single person out there is only entirely self-interested, "fuck you i got mine". (re-)read my first-page posts in this thread, please.

I read your posts.

You live in a violent, poverty-stricken area with failing infrastructure and because a few people in the neighborhood give out free tacos you think we would all live in harmony if there were no laws.

The problem isn't the federal government, the problem is: you live in Oakland. I could find some pretty violent, rundown areas in my city too but I choose not to live there.

Do you have a solution for any of the issues created by a lack of federal government?

What happens to healthcare for those who cannot pay? Are you going to use the threat of violence to force hospitals to provide free medical care for uninsured patients? What happens to an uninsured pregnant female with a complicated pregnancy? Right now the federal government forces hospitals to care for these patients via EMTALA (fwiw about half of my work is charity because of this), but if that mandate were lifted, undoubtedly some hospitals would change their policies toward indigent care.

My other specific question is; what would anarchy offer me? How would anarchy improve the average citizen's life in the USA?

[BraveUlysses]

Resisting the toxic gynocentrism peddled by the fascist, regressive left is in no way the same thing as what you're suggesting.

You're clearly suffering from the mental disorder of liberalism, the red pill can help with that.

ugh, another MRA shitbag

cant you keep your terrible views on whatever subreddit you normally post on

[decay]

Pros and Cons of Anarchism:

Pro: If you're a violent criminal you will be able to take property by force with impunity.

Con: If you are a peaceful, productive citizen you are likely to be murdered and/or lose your property/possessions.

Pro: I would not pay medicare tax.

Con: With no medicare/medicaid and no access to Emergency Services due to lack of EMTALA, millions of people would die/suffer due to preventable medical illness.

Pro: I would not pay income tax.

Con: Without national defense the country would soon be taken over by a tyrannical dictator.

Pro: No speed limits, drive as fast as you want.

Con: Within a few years all roads and infrastructure would be failing and interstate travel would become impossible.

Pro: Maybe one or two people would feel less oppressed.

Con: In a lawless society, the strong will survive. Those with power, predominately strong males with the income necessary to preserve power will crush those who oppose them without fear of legal retribution, in essence creating a warring city-state society for years until power is consolidated by a single, likely male leader who wields absolute power.

Pro: Don't have to pay for WIC/women's services resulting in less taxes.

Con: Women and infants die.

sure, if you pre-suppose that every single person out there is only entirely self-interested, "fuck you i got mine". (re-)read my first-page posts in this thread, please.

[marshallnoise]

Nailed it.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[coldweatherblue]

Pros and Cons of Anarchism:

Pro: If you're a violent criminal you will be able to take property by force with impunity.

Con: If you are a peaceful, productive citizen you are likely to be murdered and/or lose your property/possessions.

Pro: I would not pay medicare tax.

Con: With no medicare/medicaid and no access to Emergency Services due to lack of EMTALA, millions of people would die/suffer due to preventable medical illness.

Pro: I would not pay income tax.

Con: Without national defense the country would soon be taken over by a tyrannical dictator.

Pro: No speed limits, drive as fast as you want.

Con: Within a few years all roads and infrastructure would be failing and interstate travel would become impossible.

Pro: Maybe one or two people would feel less oppressed.

Con: In a lawless society, the strong will survive. Those with power, predominately strong males with the income necessary to preserve power will crush those who oppose them without fear of legal retribution, in essence creating a warring city-state society for years until power is consolidated by a single, likely male leader who wields absolute power.

Pro: Don't have to pay for WIC/women's services resulting in less taxes.

Con: Women and infants die.

[mrsleeve]

This is devolving into pointlessness and not really about the tenets/pros/cons of anarchism anymore.

You brought it up and brought Doxxing into this, and I called you on it and with a real documented case of it on a mass scale form a "legitimate" news source to back up my point.

Honestly I dont see how what you espouse aligns really well with anarchy in the true sense of the term. Seems like a "movement" with out actual identity too me

[Hooffenstein HD]

ya do realize that this is pretty much a bullet-point list of our cause?

the american right demographic is also responsible for every single one of these acts.

Resisting the toxic gynocentrism peddled by the fascist, regressive left is in no way the same thing as what you're suggesting.

You're clearly suffering from the mental disorder of liberalism, the red pill can help with that.

[decay]

This is devolving into pointlessness and not really about the tenets/pros/cons of anarchism anymore.