lettuceLeafer

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Not really tbh, seeing what an ideal anarchy would be for thought slime or most people on r/@ would be incredibly unideal for me. But ultimately it di sent matter because their positions don't challenge the system so I'll never have to worry about their ideas actually happening.

1

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

God I can understand why tankies like to take over anarchist subs. We both can't stand to look at them and despise democracy the only differenc is I can't b fucked to actually do it.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in anarchist vs syndie by ziq

Sorry I took so long to respond. I took some time to think about it then you where on your break from raddle so I waited till u came back.

the predators depend on the prey as much as the prey depend on the predators

But isn't every hierarchy a relationship where the top us dependent in the bottom? Like CEOs and shareholders need workers. Governments couldn't function without citizens to fight in wars, to pay taxes and enforce the laws.

In fairness I don't want to get hung up on that argument bc it really wasn't what I was trying to talk about.

I was more talking about some species herd relations in the wild. Bull elephants for example will form bachelor herds where the strongest elephant dictates rules for the herd such as where to go and who is allowed in the herd. The only way an elephant can challenge the rules is to overpower the leader elephant or leave.

Or lions for example. Male lions will not allow other male lions interact with other lions in the pride. Or how there are some class dynamics in lion prides. When food is hunted the "most deserving" lions get to eat first. And the lions with socially deemed less valuable positions or deemed socially less important eat last. And when food is scarce are the first ones to go hungry.

Humans aren't the only animal which can socially contrive hierarchy.

Tho in fairness this is kinda a interesting question as it shows the difference in how we see hierarchy. We aren't debating what is actually happening or the correct way things are to be done. It's trying to understand how each other perceive the world in a different way which is a bit neat. Imo

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

never was a big theory reader but I feel that here I will need to start a journey to understand more of my own position

Honestly I haven't found any vegan theory to be helpful. I find that trying to create my own type of veganism based on my values independent of current vegan status quo is helpful. Being critical of carnism and veganism and trying to take the bits I like is helpful. Tho I wish u luck in trying to find helpful theory. It wasn't really useful at all in my experience tho.

I "know" it is the right thing

I used to do veganism bc it was the right thing. At some point I rejected the idea of it being the right thing and just kept doing it out of convenience. Now I have a good reason to do it. See I'm very greedy and want to limit societal constraints on myself to have a better life. A society where the populace doesn't value allowing autonomy to living things it doesn't value is quite harmful to me. A world where people don't justify taking away living things autonomy is a world where I am far less likely to have my autonomy taken away. And even if many still want to take my autonomy growing the amount of people who are proactive in preventing other living things from loosing their autonomy is a world where I am more secure. I.e. more people to help defend my own autonomy.

I think veganism would only be an opt out of the system if their food was produced themself or anarchistically. And since I consider all killing or taking of animal products to be a reproduction of capitalism this opt out could only be done if vegan. But I don't think being a vegan dumpster diver or a vegan grocery store shopper counts as opting out.

Other than those 2 gripes I have I agree..

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

also consider the category of "shoplifting" within the realm of consumerism

Yeah anarchist projects are so much stronger when less reliant on statism. Shoplifting makes a project reliant on corporations existence when in reality the best long term solution is to be independent of corporations existence. As shoplifting provides incentive to maintain a companies existsnc to those who benefit from shoplifting.

Shoplifting and theft is a short term practice for those who are downtrodden and a less than idea way to deal with things.

Anarchists making food in a decentralized manner is far more preferred to stealing food. But I have nothing against stealing other than saying that it isn't the end goal or goal if not necessary.

I agree with u basically on everything u said.

Anarchists always will mess around with societal taboos. Maybe this issue is only a "issue" bc of our culture

Tho I don't quite understand this bit. Would you mind trying to make this point in a different way?

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

I only know some of the legalize for some states. But in my knowledge there seems to be 3 parts to breaking n entering

1 knowingly trespassing

2 trespassing while carrying or using tools such as bolt cutters lockpicks ect

3 trespassing to commit a crime

Trespassing can differ state by state but often it requires you to have knowledge that you aren't allowed in an area. There being a gate would be the indicator you are not allowed to stick your arm through.

Tho dot just take my advice. In the US looking up many criminal laws is very accessible just look up breaking and entering laws in "insert your state here".

Often times the first result are from a law firm summarizing the legal documents in an accessible way for most people.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about https://www.ronaldbrower.com/blog/2021/07/is-breaking-and-entering-a-felony/

Heck in this article one of the examples is if breaking a car windows so you can grab a wallet in the seat but never enter the car is breaking n entering. Which is very similar to what you are talking about.

3