dolly_wally

dolly_wally wrote

I think most people are leftist because of the promise of utopia. It's no doubt attractive and popular to most younger people in todays world. I think a better question isn't why are most people leftist. But more so, why isn't everyone leftist? There are a plethora of answers to that question, but I think if posed to a truly diverse audience (which raddle is not), the latter question would help more.

1

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to by !deleted8217

I would imagine this to be difficult since anarchy is keen on taking down groups of power. In order to gather together and come to a concensus of what anarchy is, a group would have to be formed and that consensus would have to be agreed upon, which could cause a group with power over others who don't share the same ideals as that groups consensus.

This is an outsiders opinion, as I am not an anarchist, but it would seem to me that if all anarchist agreed on how the world should be, then they would be forming the exact group that they aretrying to defeat. A 'state' of anarchism, which is a contradiction in a lot of ways.

/u/TheLegendaryBirdMonster put it best in that,

All anarchists agree that the world should be "not this" and "no hierarchies" but that's about it.

Forming a group conception would defeat that very concept.

3

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted20335 in by !deleted20335

Thanks for the replies. I can get on board with most of this.

I encourage you to look into the story of Waco, The Branch Davidians, I mean, I think the guy was off a little bit, but it seemed that most of his followers wanted to be there, they believed in his story and seemed to be realatively happy with their life. Then the militarized police ended up intruding on their commune and ended up burning it down with many innocent people inside and considered him a lunatic murderer and rapist because of his beliefs. Again, I dont agree with his beliefs, but I think in general he was pretty harmless for the most part.

2

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted20335 in by !deleted20335

I get what you mean about a free market. I don't disagree either. I just have a hard time understanding the day to day life of someone without a somewhat free market in place. And when I say that I mean, dumb it down to simply, when I buy a gallon of milk, who is providing it to me and are they benefitting from me buying it by being paid/compensated in some way for the work it took to feed the cow, milk it (humanely of course), bottle it, ship it and sell it?

I'm not anti civ myself as I dont know enough to claim the label. What are your concerns about anti civ specifically. I'm not sure what civilized life entails in your mind so I'm not sure what points to bring up.

My concerns with anti civ are that I like to have a peaceful day now and then where I can sit down, relax and enjoy nature and life without having a moltov cocktail thrown at my house. (Exaggerated for affect lol)

I dont think a state of anarchy is possible. There will always be a groups of people who will use their power to take advantage of others. I want to live my life trying to reduce the amount of power people have over others.

I agree, it goes against the very definition of anarchy. Thats why I have a hard time getting fully on board with anarchist...whats the end game?

I'm okay with ownership of private property in some instances. Most people of this website who out anarchists dont want to use the state to run the private property but rather the community. I think it's unfair for me to argue for anarcho communism if I'm not one though. I'm fine with people living in a community which owns all the means of products but I dont want to live in one.

So in your society or an anarchist state (if one could exist), if someone wanted to createa commune such as the branch davidians, how would it be handled?

I think your actions should work towards bringing more of your values into the real world rather than try to enact a perfect society. I think that trying to plan a perfect society is not just difficult but impossible.

I agree, its a mental game I play, I know it would never plan out but its more for the reason you stated. To try to figure out what my values for society really are and why they make it better. Thats the hopeful outcome.

Thanks!

1

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted20335 in by !deleted20335

That is my goal.

The term capitalism has such a bad rap, I just promote free market. Capitalism to me is way too dependant on big government and lobbying, and borderline slave labor.

Another thing to remember is that when people say they are anti civilization they are referring to how cities are environmentally unsustainable and how humans should reintegrate with nature more. This is very broad and lacks lots of nuance, but it helps make anti civ more understandable. I was a little worried when I heard people call for the destruction of civilization at first.

This is one of my concerns with anarchy, I enjoy civilized life, and I am big on getting closer to nature, I am not an environmentalist by ay means, but I do care about neglegant mistreating of the environment. But the destruction of civilization is scary to me in the sense that it seems like there are a lot of communist views in the anarchist group. I could be wrong, but thats my fear nonetheless.

Anarchists typically replace the usage of freedom with others having more or less power over you. Less hierarchy = more freedom. And they are usually against letting people have power over others even if its mutual. Freedom has many overlaps with less heirachy but they do differ in some ways.

I understand the fear of some people having power over others even if it is mutual, but I think thats just human nature. It's not perfect by any means but I feel that at least in a truly free society, you could have a group of oppressed take care of any oppressors. Which is where a temporary state of anarchy could prevail so long as it was justified.

Anarchism private property = factory's, farms, and other things used to make a profit. Personal property = your computer, food, clothes, etc. Raddle actual has quite a few differing opinions on how private property should be used and organized in society.

I am partially a farmer, but not a factory farm by any means, very small, all natural raising of animals and produce selling to our local community. So I would balk at that from the sense that I think in a perfect society we have many many more small farms and way way less factory farms, I think every other person in a community should be farming and helping support neighbors food needs without growing into a animal production facility. I eat meat though so I may be partial. 99% of the meat and dairy I eat is raised by my family though.

I am not set in my ways on private property. I try to remain open minded, but I do fear almost anything that is state owned/operated/maintained just because it requires too much government.

I am always trying to plan out the perfect society in my mind. It's proven very difficult.

2

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to by !deleted20335

Thanks for sharing this lettuceleafer, your perspective is interesting to me.

I fear that this forum is being interpreted as an ancapism space, and I want to make sure that it is not.

Although in my opinion, anarchy is a useful tool for change, I think all libertarians can agree that our primary concern is private property/individual rights. That has little to do with capitalism.

And to speak to one of your comments down the line, THIS forum is not one that is accepting of racism.

I seem to be less educated than most people on here but I try to correct any ignoramous posts, or comments. I am here to converse, and broaden my understandings of other peoples beliefs so that I can understand where people are coming from.

Again, thanks for posting this.

1

dolly_wally wrote

Your rambling was more helpful than the other person who thinks I am here to mess with people.

As you know I am just a dummy when it comes to this. Probably too sheltered as a kid lol

I guess my responses were likely to the fact that of this whole attack on whiteness that is coming about recently. If someone is white they can't change that shit so why can't we be calling out racists for what they are. Racist, racism can go both ways, I know black people who hate white people just as much as a racist white guy hates blacks. Dubbing 'whiteness' as the crime is what is frustrating, how would we feel if they started running around boycotting blackness, you can't do that shit.

The racial divide is broadening and it is hard for people with a heart who aren't even a little bit racist but yet they're being dubbed as racist because they fall under the 'whiteness' spectrum. That is why people get frustrated and can't get on board with the anti-racism train, the anti-racists are literally attacking a race, 'whiteness'.

As an example. Every communist I talk to says that the communist regimes in power up to this point in history are nothing like what real communism is about as they are advocating for communism. My argument is always this, change the name of your belief.

If being less racist is the goal as a society, which it should be, then stop attacking other peoples races to further yours, we have to build bridges not burn them. That's all I've got for now.

Thanks lettuceleafer

and yes, my thought process is different than most on raddle, but I am here, nonetheless, I always try to be respectful to people and I appreciate when people do the same to me. I am here to learn and further my knowledge and perspective, even if our oponions differ.

2

dolly_wally wrote

I am sure I'll regret asking this question to the poster. Please understand where I am coming from. I am just asking for clarification, not trying to start anything by my questions. I am just looking for answers.

Why does it always end up that all white people are racist just because someone of the same color shot someone of another color? None of the white people I know shot anyone. They're my friends, they're not racist at all. This post is like most that we see now days that basically frames all white people as racist.

The other point is this. Maybe in most of these cases, the shooter was in the wrong -- I don't know if they were, I wasn't there.-- and if they were, fine, but what if, they had a legitimate reason to use deadly force? Does this make them exempt from being racist or part of the lynching bee? If not, why?

Last point is this. Why is black on black murder acceptable, but just based on the color of the killers skin it makes it not acceptable? I mean, shouldn't we protest all unjustified deaths, regardless of the color of their skin? There are people all over the world who are killed without justified reason. Why does it have to be racial?

Again, I am not trying to be insensative to the cause here, I hate seeing my people get killed, but it seems lopsided.

1

dolly_wally OP wrote

Maybe so, but I would like to think that most Libertarians would understand that it would have to infiltrate from the inside, slowly. Anarchy is the other route, but anarchy against said institution will only be met with military resistance, a military resistance that would most likely easily mow over.

To be realistic, -but not to put words in other libertarians mouths - I would think that most libertarians would not want the complete destruction of our government that Anarchy suggests, but would rather to have the government, and some of its services in tact yet remain as small as possible.

I could be wrong on that assumption. But I am far from an anarchist, though I realize it can be effective as a vehicle for change. I still enjoy civilization, and I think that some government could aid in that, so long as it remains small in size and control.

I believe that if we had a formiddable candidate, with a clear, constructive message, that isn't so radical and far from the mainstream, we could win a major seat while slowly removing regulations that hinder freedom.

4

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted20335 in by !deleted20335

I am in the same boat. The wikipedia page was what I saw.

It seems a valid system, slightly similar to free market anarchy. Which for me is a little too much chaos, but maybe just enough. Would have to look into it deeper. I will do more research.

Thanks.

2

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted20335 in by !deleted20335

That's interesting that you mention agorism. I was unaware of the concepts name, but have known the conept.

Would you elaberate as to why you think agorism is a negative concept?

2

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to by !deleted23972

Thanks for this. I am using it in the side bar to help people understand Libertarianism. Good Read.

3

dolly_wally wrote

Reply to by !deleted20335

I am not sure how they run things but, all of that sounds like far too much regulation to me. I have only been in the real world for about 8 years so I don't know what the changes have been as I haven't been around to see the changes occur.

3