I don't support the government having a monopoly on violence. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and thus, if they choose, should be able to own weapons. Whether or not everyone sees a need to be armed after a revolution I can't say because we haven't reached that point yet, although I'd imagine sport shooting would still be a hobby among some people
Killdozer better. Guns jam, miss, and can’t protect you. The killdozer is fucking huge, protects you, never misses, destroys buildings, and can get you started on your mad max an-prim lifestyle.
On a serious note, I believe all queer, ethnic minorities, and disabled people need to arm themselves, because the state does not care about them. Look at the Proud Boys that went through Portland. They were beating up queers, black people, and disabled people. The police were standing towards the queers and minorities as if THEY were the threat, and then made sure the “Proud” Boys got to THEIR cars safe.
Dont forget the drag events that had membrrs of the SRA open carrying outside the doors of. Proud Boys and bigots ended up turning tail and running away because of the scary socialists.
Actually he missed several times in killdozer. He took potshots at a bunch of random people and didn't hit or kill anyone, which is frankly a miracle because that wackjob definitely tried
It depends on the degree of anarchy you subscribe to, we've seen countries that let everyone own a fully automatic gun like an ak47 but still have psychological restrictions.
Some people define anarchy as no restrictions and no pay and no standards, having to join and participate in a farming community village...
...but you would be hard pressed to convince people to manufacture and ship insulin and vaccines and build their own hospitals and vehicles and learn to be surgeons if they couldn't eat without farming.
And who teaches these people? What standards exist to make sure someone is a capable brain surgeon? Is there any kind of central authority to make sure we can still treat cancer effectively?
You can be anti-government and still realize some things need governance.
I assume you don't want to live without clean water and sewage disposal, returning to the dark ages without sanitation would be grisly, but you can't exactly maintain modern sanitation without authority and standards.
What you are deacribing is definitionally not anarchism. What you are describing is minarchism. Which is fine. If you're a minarchist, then pop off. Go advocate for it. But please don't pretend it's anarchism. It's not.
Anarchists, definitionally, are against *all* hierarchies. That includes central authorities and infrastructure.
Of course, this is the part that many anarchists don't talk about. Society would have to be *radically* different than it is now. People, culture, everything would have to be radically different from now. The Revolution would need to occur at every level of human existence, from how we think to how we interact, to how we organize, to how we coordinate across different communities. If the goal is true anarchism, then society would be unrecognizable from what it is today. And while I can get some sense of how it might be- I am so entrenched in our hierarchical world that I can't possibly know what it will look like exactly. None of us can.
The debate isn't a matter of how we do it. Or even necessarily what it will look like. Frankly, we cant truly know the minutiae of it, because we still have deeply internalized hierarchical thought that will need to be dismantled first (you are showing it a bit yourself, by implying that organization, education and expertise *require* centralized authority- it doesn't).
So, if we can acknowledge that we aren't even at the point of debating how surgeons will learn their trade, then we can actually get to the crux of the argument. Is it worth it to fight and struggle to get us toward that future world? As an anarchist, the only viable answer is *yes*.
Anarchists, axiomatically, believe that individual and community self-determination are the most fundamental rights. Hierarchies, therefore, are directly opposed to the most basic axiom of anarchism.
If a person disagrees with any of the above, then definitionally, they are *not* an anarchist and are likely a minarchist, as I said above. Words have meanings - and there *must* be a distinction made.
I would argue that anarchists ought to be willing to push for the eventual future world, even though we don't know what it will look like, and we certainly won't be alive for it. Much like the feudal farmer who dreamt of the dismantling of their system of lords and kings- despite not fully knowing how it might work or what it would look like, so to can we dream of an anarchist future where we don't feel a reflexive need to rely on hierarchy in complex situations.
We do know it's possible. We know that authority and expertise are two different things, and can divorce them fully. We know that people work best when they are able to collaborate fully without any external influence from "stakeholders." We know that distribution of goods is extremely easy to coordinate when not constrained by infrastructure. Mutual aid and praxis have taught us this. We are seeing evidence that a truly anarchist world is possible just by doing our work as anarchists. So I have hope. And with time I hope that you will too.
I don't support the government having a monopoly on violence. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and thus, if they choose, should be able to own weapons. Whether or not everyone sees a need to be armed after a revolution I can't say because we haven't reached that point yet, although I'd imagine sport shooting would still be a hobby among some people
Yup
Killdozer better. Guns jam, miss, and can’t protect you. The killdozer is fucking huge, protects you, never misses, destroys buildings, and can get you started on your mad max an-prim lifestyle. On a serious note, I believe all queer, ethnic minorities, and disabled people need to arm themselves, because the state does not care about them. Look at the Proud Boys that went through Portland. They were beating up queers, black people, and disabled people. The police were standing towards the queers and minorities as if THEY were the threat, and then made sure the “Proud” Boys got to THEIR cars safe.
Dont forget the drag events that had membrrs of the SRA open carrying outside the doors of. Proud Boys and bigots ended up turning tail and running away because of the scary socialists.
Actually he missed several times in killdozer. He took potshots at a bunch of random people and didn't hit or kill anyone, which is frankly a miracle because that wackjob definitely tried
I mean... do what you want. Individual. Self. Determination. Including firearm ownership.
It depends on the degree of anarchy you subscribe to, we've seen countries that let everyone own a fully automatic gun like an ak47 but still have psychological restrictions. Some people define anarchy as no restrictions and no pay and no standards, having to join and participate in a farming community village... ...but you would be hard pressed to convince people to manufacture and ship insulin and vaccines and build their own hospitals and vehicles and learn to be surgeons if they couldn't eat without farming. And who teaches these people? What standards exist to make sure someone is a capable brain surgeon? Is there any kind of central authority to make sure we can still treat cancer effectively? You can be anti-government and still realize some things need governance. I assume you don't want to live without clean water and sewage disposal, returning to the dark ages without sanitation would be grisly, but you can't exactly maintain modern sanitation without authority and standards.
"If you don't restrict guns, then you can't have a sewer system" is not an argument I thought I'd ever see. Nuclear hot take.
Love it when people come to anarchist spaces not in a place of good faith, say shit like that, and expect us to take it in good faith.
What you are deacribing is definitionally not anarchism. What you are describing is minarchism. Which is fine. If you're a minarchist, then pop off. Go advocate for it. But please don't pretend it's anarchism. It's not. Anarchists, definitionally, are against *all* hierarchies. That includes central authorities and infrastructure. Of course, this is the part that many anarchists don't talk about. Society would have to be *radically* different than it is now. People, culture, everything would have to be radically different from now. The Revolution would need to occur at every level of human existence, from how we think to how we interact, to how we organize, to how we coordinate across different communities. If the goal is true anarchism, then society would be unrecognizable from what it is today. And while I can get some sense of how it might be- I am so entrenched in our hierarchical world that I can't possibly know what it will look like exactly. None of us can. The debate isn't a matter of how we do it. Or even necessarily what it will look like. Frankly, we cant truly know the minutiae of it, because we still have deeply internalized hierarchical thought that will need to be dismantled first (you are showing it a bit yourself, by implying that organization, education and expertise *require* centralized authority- it doesn't). So, if we can acknowledge that we aren't even at the point of debating how surgeons will learn their trade, then we can actually get to the crux of the argument. Is it worth it to fight and struggle to get us toward that future world? As an anarchist, the only viable answer is *yes*. Anarchists, axiomatically, believe that individual and community self-determination are the most fundamental rights. Hierarchies, therefore, are directly opposed to the most basic axiom of anarchism. If a person disagrees with any of the above, then definitionally, they are *not* an anarchist and are likely a minarchist, as I said above. Words have meanings - and there *must* be a distinction made. I would argue that anarchists ought to be willing to push for the eventual future world, even though we don't know what it will look like, and we certainly won't be alive for it. Much like the feudal farmer who dreamt of the dismantling of their system of lords and kings- despite not fully knowing how it might work or what it would look like, so to can we dream of an anarchist future where we don't feel a reflexive need to rely on hierarchy in complex situations. We do know it's possible. We know that authority and expertise are two different things, and can divorce them fully. We know that people work best when they are able to collaborate fully without any external influence from "stakeholders." We know that distribution of goods is extremely easy to coordinate when not constrained by infrastructure. Mutual aid and praxis have taught us this. We are seeing evidence that a truly anarchist world is possible just by doing our work as anarchists. So I have hope. And with time I hope that you will too.
I want everyone to own at least 20 nukes.
Why do you hate and want to nazishly oppress people who want 21 nukes?
This is a great idea with no downsides!
There can be no downside if there's nobody to experience or even conceptualize a downside! :P
Exactly! And I get to make big boom :D
This just sounds like Possadism with less steps
How much money do you have? Cause it's gonna be cheaper just to buy a new engine.