Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Rogue Hyperpower]

there are different fringes of anarchists, in practice, in 'the effective domain of real'. in the theory, we should say there is a lineage of 'anarchycal' concepts.

the main pavement ramification is difference between european and american anarchism definition. personally, i agree in calling as 'anarchists' even not the 'purest' forms.

Indeed. Where was the vote taken that determined "no rules XD lol!!1!" can't be anarchists? It seems to me rather counter-intuitive to anarchism to declare a sacred canon none may deviate from. If the Zapatistas are "anarchists" then so is the Mafia.

[Torrocca]

there are different fringes of anarchists, in practice, in 'the effective domain of real'. in the theory, we should say there is a lineage of 'anarchycal' concepts.

the main pavement ramification is difference between european and american anarchism definition. personally, i agree in calling as 'anarchists' even not the 'purest' forms.

Indeed. Where was the vote taken that determined "no rules XD lol!!1!" can't be anarchists? It seems to me rather counter-intuitive to anarchism to declare a sacred canon none may deviate from. If the Zapatistas are "anarchists" then so is the Mafia.

This is only true if you have precisely zero idea of what any actual Anarchist theories or written works entail.

"Residents of the municipality El Bosque, located in the Highlands of Chiapas, have come to the agreement"

But my point is that ALL the residents of the municipality did not voluntarily agree to the rule of the Zapatistas, since they took over from the former government. I am sure that there were people who were happy under the former rulers, yet they are being forced to agree to the Zapitista rule. You keep specifying that these people voluntarily agreed to follow the consensus of the majority, and that I do not see as factual.

Your link doesn't say that there were people forced to live as a Zapatista, nor does it say they're being forced to agree with rules enacted by the Zapatistas, assuming they weren't forced to be a Zapatista.

It's almost like they practice actual Anarchist theory and not, "lol xD anarchism means no rulez!!1!" like people think Anarchism is.

That seems rather "no true Scotman" given the very real debates between anarchists on whether or not the Zapatista hierarchy is actually an anarchist society. I don't think that's a settled question. Maybe they is, maybe they ain't. I've no disaffected bombthrower in that fight. I'm just asking questions.

It's literally not a "no true Scotsman"; there's a valid definition of what Anarchism is as a cluster of political ideologies, and, "lol no rules xD!" isn't that.

It seems to me an age requirement on participating in group decisions is a bit dehumanizing. The commune makes the disenfranchised children into second-class members / citizens.

It's not dehumanizing at all; a four-year-old isn't going to know shit about how establishing effective policies that benefit their community works. This is the same reason why kids aren't allowed positions of government power in non-Anarchist societies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not dehumanizing at all; a four-year-old isn't going to know shit about how establishing effective policies that benefit their community works. This is the same reason why kids aren't allowed positions of government power in non-Anarchist societies.

You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of adults too tbh

[Petrolheadia]

It's not dehumanizing at all; a four-year-old isn't going to know shit about how establishing effective policies that benefit their community works. This is the same reason why kids aren't allowed positions of government power in non-Anarchist societies.

You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of adults too tbh

Yeah, I think we should be looking for ways to exit democracy.

Antonio Salazar is currently growing on me.

[Torrocca]

It's not dehumanizing at all; a four-year-old isn't going to know shit about how establishing effective policies that benefit their community works. This is the same reason why kids aren't allowed positions of government power in non-Anarchist societies.

You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of adults too tbh

The problem is that most people nowadays (in the west, at least) grow up in societies with broken or ineffective local communities that aren't really so much so communities as they are just places where people kinda live and maybe occasionally interact with a couple of neighbors or so. Add that to the political divisions caused by partisan politics in a flawed system of democracy and you've got a recipe for hyper-divisive disaster. If people grew up in strong, tight-knit communities and didn't grow up experiencing such atrocious political division, things would be far better and your average adult would be more than trustworthy in being able to figure out and resolve issues of governance and the like, since they'd already be doing that within their community in concert with the other members of it.

[Torrocca]

You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of adults too tbh

Yeah, I think we should be looking for ways to exit democracy.

Antonio Salazar is currently growing on me.

Or how about no, and fuck that noise?

Democracy may not always be perfect, but the power to choose will always be greater and better than a fucking authoritarian regime.

[Petrolheadia]

Yeah, I think we should be looking for ways to exit democracy.

Antonio Salazar is currently growing on me.

Or how about no, and fuck that noise?

Democracy may not always be perfect, but the power to choose will always be greater and better than a fucking authoritarian regime.

Power without knowledge is a dynamite stick, not a candle of enlightenment.

I wouldn't trust at least 99% of people with voting.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Yeah, I think we should be looking for ways to exit democracy.

Antonio Salazar is currently growing on me.

Or how about no, and fuck that noise?

Democracy may not always be perfect, but the power to choose will always be greater and better than a fucking authoritarian regime.

Somebody has clearly never read about Antonio Oliveira de Salazar.

[Torrocca]

Or how about no, and fuck that noise?

Democracy may not always be perfect, but the power to choose will always be greater and better than a fucking authoritarian regime.

Somebody has clearly never read about Antonio Oliveira de Salazar.

His regime was full-stop authoritarian, hun, let's not try and mince words now.

Or how about no, and fuck that noise?

Democracy may not always be perfect, but the power to choose will always be greater and better than a fucking authoritarian regime.

Power without knowledge is a dynamite stick, not a candle of enlightenment.

I wouldn't trust at least 99% of people with voting.

And why should we then assume that an authoritarian regime wouldn't feature somebody from that 99% in charge? Why should we trust that your idea is the right one when you could just as easily be one of those 99%?

I think the real fault lies with you, here.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of adults too tbh

The problem is that most people nowadays (in the west, at least) grow up in societies with broken or ineffective local communities that aren't really so much so communities as they are just places where people kinda live and maybe occasionally interact with a couple of neighbors or so. Add that to the political divisions caused by partisan politics in a flawed system of democracy and you've got a recipe for hyper-divisive disaster. If people grew up in strong, tight-knit communities and didn't grow up experiencing such atrocious political division, things would be far better and your average adult would be more than trustworthy in being able to figure out and resolve issues of governance and the like, since they'd already be doing that within their community in concert with the other members of it.

Which is all nice and good, but it brings us full circle to your ideas only being applicable on the very small scale. If you want to run off and start a commune of a few dozen people more power to you but I'd like working systems for a nation of hundreds of millions.

[Torrocca]

The problem is that most people nowadays (in the west, at least) grow up in societies with broken or ineffective local communities that aren't really so much so communities as they are just places where people kinda live and maybe occasionally interact with a couple of neighbors or so. Add that to the political divisions caused by partisan politics in a flawed system of democracy and you've got a recipe for hyper-divisive disaster. If people grew up in strong, tight-knit communities and didn't grow up experiencing such atrocious political division, things would be far better and your average adult would be more than trustworthy in being able to figure out and resolve issues of governance and the like, since they'd already be doing that within their community in concert with the other members of it.

Which is all nice and good, but it brings us full circle to your ideas only being applicable on the very small scale. If you want to run off and start a commune of a few dozen people more power to you but I'd like working systems for a nation of hundreds of millions.

... So then why can't there be multiple small groups united in confederation?

And, besides that, I'd argue Anarchism works well on much more than your proposed scale of a "few dozen" seeing as how the Zapatistas are roughly 363,000 people strong.

[Valrifell]

Who needs a nation-state anyway?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Somebody has clearly never read about Antonio Oliveira de Salazar.

His regime was full-stop authoritarian, hun, let's not try and mince words now.

Power without knowledge is a dynamite stick, not a candle of enlightenment.

I wouldn't trust at least 99% of people with voting.

And why should we then assume that an authoritarian regime wouldn't feature somebody from that 99% in charge? Why should we trust that your idea is the right one when you could just as easily be one of those 99%?

I think the real fault lies with you, here.

Oh I never denied that he was authoritarian, but he remains my political idol for his selflessness and sense of duty as a man who had near-unlimited power, yet chose to remain coolheaded and pragmatic in his decision making. The only known instance of Salazar I can remember from the top of my head was losing his cool was over the loss of Goa, but then again, no man is perfect, mmh?

As an authoritarian myself, I strive for his ideals as a leader.

[Washington Resistance Army]

... So then why can't there be multiple small groups united in confederation?

You'd need one hell of a confederation to contain 323,000,000 different people who at times are near militantly opposed to one another.

Shit breaking the US down like that would very likely just kick off the Boogaloo early at this rate.

And, besides that, I'd argue Anarchism works well on much more than your proposed scale of a "few dozen" seeing as how the Zapatistas are roughly 363,000 people strong.

From what I've seen online plenty of other anarchists don't even consider the Zapatistas to be anarchists lol, and judging from the responses here such a situation likely would have led to open conflict by now if tried here or in Euroland.

Who needs a nation-state anyway?

People who like civilization.

[Petrolheadia]

Somebody has clearly never read about Antonio Oliveira de Salazar.

His regime was full-stop authoritarian, hun, let's not try and mince words now.

A good authoritarian beats a bad democrat any day of the week.

Power without knowledge is a dynamite stick, not a candle of enlightenment.

I wouldn't trust at least 99% of people with voting.

And why should we then assume that an authoritarian regime wouldn't feature somebody from that 99% in charge? Why should we trust that your idea is the right one when you could just as easily be one of those 99%?

That's the problem, and I'm looking for a solution.

Which is all nice and good, but it brings us full circle to your ideas only being applicable on the very small scale. If you want to run off and start a commune of a few dozen people more power to you but I'd like working systems for a nation of hundreds of millions.

... So then why can't there be multiple small groups united in confederation?

Large projects?

You know, regulating rivers, building highways, etc.

[Torrocca]

His regime was full-stop authoritarian, hun, let's not try and mince words now.



And why should we then assume that an authoritarian regime wouldn't feature somebody from that 99% in charge? Why should we trust that your idea is the right one when you could just as easily be one of those 99%?

I think the real fault lies with you, here.

Oh I never denied that he was authoritarian, but he remains my political idol for his selflessness and sense of duty as a man who had near-unlimited power, yet chose to remain coolheaded and pragmatic in his decision making. The only known instance of Salazar I can remember from the top of my head was losing his cool was over the loss of Goa, but then again, no man is perfect, mmh?

See, unlike you, I'm not ignoring the fact that his reign directly led to the death of at least 100,000 people from his colonial wars alone.

As an authoritarian myself, I strive for his ideals as a leader.

Eww.

His regime was full-stop authoritarian, hun, let's not try and mince words now.

A good authoritarian beats a bad democrat any day of the week.

And a bad authoritarian is impossible to remove from power by peaceful means. Didn't think that one through much, did you?

And why should we then assume that an authoritarian regime wouldn't feature somebody from that 99% in charge? Why should we trust that your idea is the right one when you could just as easily be one of those 99%?

That's the problem, and I'm looking for a solution.

You won't find it in authoritarianism, but thanks for playing the "Libertarian-to-Authoritarian Pipeline" game. :3

... So then why can't there be multiple small groups united in confederation?

Large projects?

You know, regulating rivers, building highways, etc.

... That's the exact thing a system of confederated communes could resolve.

... So then why can't there be multiple small groups united in confederation?

You'd need one hell of a confederation to contain 323,000,000 different people who at times are near militantly opposed to one another.

Shit breaking the US down like that would very likely just kick off the Boogaloo early at this rate.

America could always have stock-standard democratic socialism to resolve that issue, then, I suppose. The people are getting fucked hard under the current economic system, might as well have something that actually addresses their economic needs, while having a government large enough to make it work for millions of people.

And, besides that, I'd argue Anarchism works well on much more than your proposed scale of a "few dozen" seeing as how the Zapatistas are roughly 363,000 people strong.

From what I've seen online plenty of other anarchists don't even consider the Zapatistas to be anarchists lol, and judging from the responses here such a situation likely would have led to open conflict by now if tried here or in Euroland.

It's debatably Anarchist, sure, but I consider it such. Regardless, my point above stays my point above for America and Europe.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Oh I never denied that he was authoritarian, but he remains my political idol for his selflessness and sense of duty as a man who had near-unlimited power, yet chose to remain coolheaded and pragmatic in his decision making. The only known instance of Salazar I can remember from the top of my head was losing his cool was over the loss of Goa, but then again, no man is perfect, mmh?

See, unlike you, I'm not ignoring the fact that his reign directly led to the death of at least 100,000 people from his colonial wars alone.

As an authoritarian myself, I strive for his ideals as a leader.

Eww.

A good authoritarian beats a bad democrat any day of the week.

And a bad authoritarian is impossible to remove from power by peaceful means. Didn't think that one through much, did you?

That's the problem, and I'm looking for a solution.

You won't find it in authoritarianism, but thanks for playing the "Libertarian-to-Authoritarian Pipeline" game. :3

Large projects?

You know, regulating rivers, building highways, etc.

... That's the exact thing a system of confederated communes could resolve.

You'd need one hell of a confederation to contain 323,000,000 different people who at times are near militantly opposed to one another.

Shit breaking the US down like that would very likely just kick off the Boogaloo early at this rate.

America could always have stock-standard democratic socialism to resolve that issue, then, I suppose. The people are getting fucked hard under the current economic system, might as well have something that actually addresses their economic needs, while having a government large enough to make it work for millions of people.

From what I've seen online plenty of other anarchists don't even consider the Zapatistas to be anarchists lol, and judging from the responses here such a situation likely would have led to open conflict by now if tried here or in Euroland.

It's debatably Anarchist, sure, but I consider it such. Regardless, my point above stays my point above for America and Europe.

His colonial wars were a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors of post-independence Angola and Mozambique (of which my family personally experienced), so frankly, I’ll take beating the guerilla groups back to the Congo over decades of quasi-total societal, economic and demographic collapse.

Not to mention that during said colonial wars, many incentives for the development of the colonies were being deployed to crush any support the guerillas had from the very roots.

[Torrocca]

See, unlike you, I'm not ignoring the fact that his reign directly led to the death of at least 100,000 people from his colonial wars alone.



Eww.



And a bad authoritarian is impossible to remove from power by peaceful means. Didn't think that one through much, did you?



You won't find it in authoritarianism, but thanks for playing the "Libertarian-to-Authoritarian Pipeline" game. :3



... That's the exact thing a system of confederated communes could resolve.



America could always have stock-standard democratic socialism to resolve that issue, then, I suppose. The people are getting fucked hard under the current economic system, might as well have something that actually addresses their economic needs, while having a government large enough to make it work for millions of people.



It's debatably Anarchist, sure, but I consider it such. Regardless, my point above stays my point above for America and Europe.

His colonial wars were a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors of post-independence Angola and Mozambique (of which my family personally experienced), so frankly, I’ll take beating the guerilla groups back to the Congo over decades of quasi-total societal, economic and demographic collapse.

Just because another situation was worse doesn't fucking take away the blood on his hands, thank you very much.

Not to mention that during said colonial wars, many incentives for the development of the colonies were being deployed to crush any support the guerillas had from the very roots.

Wow, the people directly preventing their oppressed subjects from freeing themselves tried to add kindness to their slaughter? Clearly Salazar's a saint /s

[Western Vale Confederacy]

His colonial wars were a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors of post-independence Angola and Mozambique (of which my family personally experienced), so frankly, I’ll take beating the guerilla groups back to the Congo over decades of quasi-total societal, economic and demographic collapse.

Just because another situation was worse doesn't fucking take away the blood on his hands, thank you very much.

Not to mention that during said colonial wars, many incentives for the development of the colonies were being deployed to crush any support the guerillas had from the very roots.

Wow, the people directly preventing their oppressed subjects from freeing themselves tried to add kindness to their slaughter? Clearly Salazar's a saint /s

Last time I checked, it wasn’t the guerillas that were undertaking vaccination and education campaigns.

The best part? They were LOSING!

The only reason they even "won" was because of the Carnation Revolution back in Portugal and the new government dropping all of its colonies overnight like it’s a one-night stand without giving a single shit about securing an actual transition of power, just dropping the load in front of the guerillas and going "k you sort this out bye" and ABANDONING generations of white, mestizo and educated black families to them.

[Torrocca]

Just because another situation was worse doesn't fucking take away the blood on his hands, thank you very much.



Wow, the people directly preventing their oppressed subjects from freeing themselves tried to add kindness to their slaughter? Clearly Salazar's a saint /s

Last time I checked, it wasn’t the guerillas that were undertaking vaccination and education campaigns.

Wow, gee, it's almost like guerillas usually don't have the resources or means to do that amidst their rebellions.

The best part? They were LOSING!

Yes, let's applaud the authoritarian for attempting to maintain colonialism. Wow. So good.

The only reason they even "won" was because of the Carnation Revolution back in Portugal and the new government dropping all of its colonies overnight like it’s a one-night stand without giving a single shit about securing an actual transition of power, just dropping the load in front of the guerillas and going "k you sort this out bye" and ABANDONING generations of white, mestizo and educated black families to them.

And who the fuck is saying that letting instability take hold is better? Nobody. All that's fucking being said is that your praise for a mass-murdering authoritarian fuckface is fucked up.

[Elwher]

But my point is that ALL the residents of the municipality did not voluntarily agree to the rule of the Zapatistas, since they took over from the former government. I am sure that there were people who were happy under the former rulers, yet they are being forced to agree to the Zapitista rule. You keep specifying that these people voluntarily agreed to follow the consensus of the majority, and that I do not see as factual.

Your link doesn't say that there were people forced to live as a Zapatista, nor does it say they're being forced to agree with rules enacted by the Zapatistas, assuming they weren't forced to be a Zapatista.

It does say that alcohol is banned in the community, so they are being forced to live under Zapitista rules. Unless, as I find doubtful, all the people in the community agreed beforehand to the takeover, then it is not a voluntary agreement. Some are now living under rules they never agreed to.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Last time I checked, it wasn’t the guerillas that were undertaking vaccination and education campaigns.

Wow, gee, it's almost like guerillas usually don't have the resources or means to do that amidst their rebellions.

The best part? They were LOSING!

Yes, let's applaud the authoritarian for attempting to maintain colonialism. Wow. So good.

The only reason they even "won" was because of the Carnation Revolution back in Portugal and the new government dropping all of its colonies overnight like it’s a one-night stand without giving a single shit about securing an actual transition of power, just dropping the load in front of the guerillas and going "k you sort this out bye" and ABANDONING generations of white, mestizo and educated black families to them.

And who the fuck is saying that letting instability take hold is better? Nobody. All that's fucking being said is that your praise for a mass-murdering authoritarian fuckface is fucked up.

Mass murderer is a piss poor descriptor of Salazar, but please, go on about how YOUR political system will be free of blood despite history showing that leaders could be farting rainbows and goddamn sunshine and be named Altruism McCompassion and STILL have blood on their hands.

[Torrocca]

Your link doesn't say that there were people forced to live as a Zapatista, nor does it say they're being forced to agree with rules enacted by the Zapatistas, assuming they weren't forced to be a Zapatista.

It does say that alcohol is banned in the community,

Yes.

so they are being forced to live under Zapitista rules.

They're living under the municipality's rules, unless the Zapatistas completely run said municipality.

Unless, as I find doubtful, all the people in the community agreed beforehand to the takeover, then it is not a voluntary agreement.

Again, that's assuming the municipality is controlled by the Zapatistas.

Some are now living under rules they never agreed to.

We can't be certain that's an accurate statement.

[Elwher]

It does say that alcohol is banned in the community,

Yes.

so they are being forced to live under Zapitista rules.

They're living under the municipality's rules, unless the Zapatistas completely run said municipality.

Unless, as I find doubtful, all the people in the community agreed beforehand to the takeover, then it is not a voluntary agreement.

Again, that's assuming the municipality is controlled by the Zapatistas.

Some are now living under rules they never agreed to.

We can't be certain that's an accurate statement.

If everyone in the community agreed that there should be no alcohol there would be no need for the ban, as there would be no alcohol to ban. Therefore, we can be sure that some disagree with the rule.

[Torrocca]

Wow, gee, it's almost like guerillas usually don't have the resources or means to do that amidst their rebellions.



Yes, let's applaud the authoritarian for attempting to maintain colonialism. Wow. So good.



And who the fuck is saying that letting instability take hold is better? Nobody. All that's fucking being said is that your praise for a mass-murdering authoritarian fuckface is fucked up.

Mass murderer is a piss poor descriptor of Salazar,

It's an apt description of somebody whose policies directly killed 100,000 people at the minimum.

but please, go on about how YOUR political system will be free of blood

Ex-fucking-scuse me, but I'd like you to point where I claimed that anywhere at all.

despite history showing that leaders could be farting rainbows and goddamn sunshine and be named Altruism McCompassion and STILL have blood on their hands.

And who the fuck said I don't believe that?