You're viewing part of a thread.
no it doesn't. not necessarily, anyway. authorities don't need to automatically vanish in an anarchy. instead they may need to prove the purpose of their existence. there is literature on non-state justice systems. communism and anarchism comes from thinkers, economists and philosophers. it's not like they didn't just think of crime at all.
If you have power hierarchies and authorities, it is no longer anarcho-syndicalism. So I think you're proving my point. Also, when would these social workers with this authority ever vanish? After some sort of eugenics program to eliminate all dangerous mental illnesses from humanity?
so you think murder is or should be free in an anarchist society?
No, I think an anarchist society won't work on a large scale because mentally ill people commit murders and you will have to have a power structure to deal with them. And then suddenly you have classes of people with different levels of power.
yeah. anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness.
I never said it did. I'm talking about power structures and hierarchies. You keep putting words in my mouth.
not having any enforcement of the law is effectively lawlessness. idk how that's putting words in your mouth.
you either think anarchy is lawlessness or accept that am anarchist society would still have a way to enforce laws.
You go ahead and have the conversation with the straw man version of me you've set up on your own because you're not talking to me or about what I'm saying. Enjoy.
you know you can correct me instead of just denying my interpretation.
- do you think there would be laws in an anarchist society
- do you think the laws would be enforced in any way
is the answer is yes to both then there can be certain authorities on certain issues in an anarchist society. if the answer is no to either of those questions you either think it's lawless (no for Q1) or effectively lawless (no for Q2). tell me which part of this is a strawman.
In an enlightened society, each man or woman would govern himself or herself.
yeah but there's no such society. checks and balances must be external or they don't exist.
I've corrected you more than once and you keep putting words in my mouth and trying to talk about something I wasn't talking about. I'm not interested. And I'm done.
sounds like you're just avoiding
That's lame AF.
And from what I've seen in my lifetime and in the history of the world it's almost unavoidable.
Anarchism is unavoidable? Where are you seeing that? Because I'm seeing the world spinning into an ultracapitalist death-spiral which will end with the deaths of billions of people.
Okay a little logic lesson here introduction logic 101. The last thing you said, and we call this the antecedent, was: "And then suddenly you have classes of people with different levels of power."
Now when I reply that this is basically unavoidable from my observation, are we talking about anarchism as the antecedent or are we talking about the last sentence you wrote?
I literally feel like I'm dealing with a grade school child at this point. It's almost as if you will do anything to continue to be contentious.
Now this power shake-out that you talked about has, from my observation in life, been inevitable. In every political and social system, there's a power shake-out, the result of which is classes of people with different levels of power.
I literally feel like I’m dealing with a grade school child at this point. It’s almost as if you will do anything to continue to be contentious.
And this was the personal attack that ended the discussion. Goodbye.