Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blowbelow OP wrote

Reply to comment by Fool in My boring introduction by blowbelow

Can you describe your faith, and what is so good about it?

Be gay and do crime.

4

Fool wrote (edited )

Hence the Democratic Confederacy - you need laws in order to commit crimes.

Under Anarchy you lose your faith...

I don't think that's a particularly "good" system if your faith requires laws.

/s...quirrel 🐿️

4

blowbelow OP wrote

I don't think that's a particularly "good" system if your faith requires laws.

If I may ask a question without getting downvoted into oblivion, what is wrong with law?

1

Fool wrote

I was largely just making a joke, but this an anarchist dominated website.

Noting I'll probably give a very different to others.

Basically, anything codified into a fixed system will always lead to societal stagnation, and in turn allow power to become consolidation.

Take the 10 commandments - perfectly reasonable as recommendations to not live in mental anguish - but as soon as they're decreed by the divine, they become devoid of the original intent.

3

blowbelow OP wrote

Take the 10 commandments - perfectly reasonable as recommendations to not live in mental anguish - but as soon as they're decreed by the divine, they become devoid of the original intent.

To be completely honest, I don't get the analogy. However even when I identified as an Anarchist I always believed in the concept of having certain conditions/expectations. Primarily the expectation to not infringe on another’s liberty and a consequence to occur if that were to happen. The consequence can be reparations, mediation, rehabilitation, ostracization, etc.

1

Fool wrote (edited )

Consequences are fine, that's how relationships work.

Putting in fixed rules with specific arbiters, punishments, etc. is the pathway to consolidation of power.

With consolidated power comes Grey Squirrels, and ultimately a fight for survival.

🐿️


On a similar topic, the problem with "democratic" anarchy isn't in the voting or even in representation - the problem is in having a fixed system which is not suited to most decision making processes, and will continue to operate once it is clear that it is no longer working. If there are rifts in a society, societies should split and fragment before reforming organically rather than maintain some sort of nebulous Community.


Edit: I'm Fool, I'm not really what should be considered an example of "Anarchism".

4

ziq wrote

How do you enforce law without a monopoly on violence?

2

blowbelow OP wrote

The consequence of violating another's liberty can be reparations, mediation, rehabilitation, ostracization, etc. In some situations, this won’t require any violence. Much of society could ostracize an individual for their criminal acts by refusing to associate and conduct business with them. In other situations laws may need to be enforced by an agency capable of enacting violence (for example counter-terror units) but being capable of enacting violence doesn’t require a monopoly on violence per say.

2

fortifiedmischief wrote

telling people what to do; lack of faith in the individual's ability to do what's best in accordance with the nuance of each situation; assumption that harmful things can be prevented by making them "illegal" ; law quickly becomes a power play; law is never universal and can never take into consideration the particularities and (beautiful) chaos that life is

2