LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Aellex]

Unless you voted against those rules.

m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s

Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.

There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.

What if me and my buddies move into your communities in such a way we now form at least 51% of it. Would you be ok with bending the knee to every of our decisions because we're the majority now?

[Torrocca]

m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s

Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.

There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.

What if me and my buddies move into your communities in such a way we now form at least 51% of it. Would you be ok with bending the knee to every of our decisions because we're the majority now?

Someone forgot the part about voluntary association, it seems. If your buddies came in and started shitting up things for everyone else, everyone else could simply form a new council within their half of the community and go back to doing things their own way.

m u t u a l c o n s e n s u s

Which means, of course, talking about and discussing rules to establish them in such a way that everyone can come to an agreement on them.

There's also the fact that, if a majority vote is needed, that you're agreeing to consent to the decision of the vote by participating in both it and the community as a whole.

So, if one doesn't participate, how can we gauge their consent?

By their continued willingness to voluntarily participate in the day-to-day life of the community as a whole, for one example.

[Aellex]

Someone forgot the part about voluntary association, it seems. If your buddies came in and started shitting up things for everyone else, everyone else could simply form a new council within their half of the community and go back to doing things their own way.

But then how do you get actual decision making when a big enough group can just essentially "secede" from the community every time a vote doesn't go their way and potentially cripples it if it holds sufficient power because of the people forming it?

[Ostroeuropa]

Someone forgot the part about voluntary association, it seems. If your buddies came in and started shitting up things for everyone else, everyone else could simply form a new council within their half of the community and go back to doing things their own way.

But then how do you get actual decision making when a big enough group can just essentially "secede" from the community every time a vote doesn't go their way and potentially cripples it if it holds sufficient power because of the people forming it?

Pssst.
Ask them how they feel about people voting to be racists in their part of town.

[Aellex]

But then how do you get actual decision making when a big enough group can just essentially "secede" from the community every time a vote doesn't go their way and potentially cripples it if it holds sufficient power because of the people forming it?

Pssst.
Ask them how they feel about people voting to be racists in their part of town.

Yeah. Or Militarists. Or fascists. Or capitalists. If everyone can just do a scission over the slightest shit like a trotskyist party on steroid, then how exactly are you going to stop your "collective" from devolving into a thousand of smaller, antagonist ones ?

[Salus Maior]

THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING JUDGES?

If they literally have no power to sentence anything, why have them?

... I didn't say that, though.

Alright, so judges in your political setting do have the authority to sentence and enforce the law?

Because that would violate your tenant that all authority is consent based, because you would have to violate the consent of the sentenced. And if it's not the case, then, again, judges would be powerless and there would be no point in having them.

[Northern Davincia]

So, if one doesn't participate, how can we gauge their consent?

But surely that argument could be made in any democracy?

That's the point.

[Torrocca]

Someone forgot the part about voluntary association, it seems. If your buddies came in and started shitting up things for everyone else, everyone else could simply form a new council within their half of the community and go back to doing things their own way.

But then how do you get actual decision making when a big enough group can just essentially "secede" from the community every time a vote doesn't go their way and potentially cripples it if it holds sufficient power because of the people forming it?

It's simple: first, strive for a mutual consensus where possible, to ensure that people aren't being fucked over, or the fucking over is near-inconsequential. If not possible, then make room for a majority vote so that, at the very least, the fucking over isn't the worst thing in the world. If, for some reason, someone or a group of people feel they're being unjustly fucked over too much by the community, they can air their concerns at a community meeting. Alternatively, they're free to stop associating with the community if they feel the community will refuse to not fuck them over so much.

The point of Anarchism, of course, is to ensure things can be about as best as they possibly could be for everyone, though, so a scenario where people are being unjustly fucked over to the point of practically being exiled from the community is incredibly far-fetched, barring a few exceptions such as someone being such a detriment to the community that it's more worthwhile to fuck them over.

... I didn't say that, though.

Alright, so judges in your political setting do have the authority to sentence and enforce the law?

Because that would violate your tenant that all authority is consent based, because you would have to violate the consent of the sentenced. And if it's not the case, then, again, judges would be powerless and there would be no point in having them.

Did the sentenced person in question not first violate the consent of the community to associate with them when they broke the rules that the community agreed upon?

If so, it's not hard to argue that the person in question merely consented to be the bearer of the consequences of rule-breaking as entailed in the rules themselves.

Pssst.
Ask them how they feel about people voting to be racists in their part of town.

Yeah. Or Militarists. Or fascists. Or capitalists. If everyone can just do a scission over the slightest shit like a trotskyist party on steroid, then how exactly are you going to stop your "collective" from devolving into a thousand of smaller, antagonist ones ?

Becoming something that's very clearly meant to violate the rights of other people in the community is no bueno. :^)

[Ostroeuropa]

Becoming something that's very clearly meant to violate the rights of other people in the community is no bueno. :^)

Oh dear looks like you've got a problem then.
What are you going to do about feminists, progressives, and the controversy there?

[Northern Davincia]

Becoming something that's very clearly meant to violate the rights of other people in the community is no bueno. :^)

Private property is a right, amigo.

[Kowani]

Becoming something that's very clearly meant to violate the rights of other people in the community is no bueno. :^)

Oh dear looks like you've got a problem then.
What are you going to do about feminists, progressives, and the controversy there?

Ah, yes, the manufactured controversy.

[Aellex]

It's simple: first, strive for a mutual consensus where possible, to ensure that people aren't being fucked over, or the fucking over is near-inconsequential. If not possible, then make room for a majority vote so that, at the very least, the fucking over isn't the worst thing in the world. If, for some reason, someone or a group of people feel they're being unjustly fucked over too much by the community, they can air their concerns at a community meeting. Alternatively, they're free to stop associating with the community if they feel the community will refuse to not fuck them over so much.

The point of Anarchism, of course, is to ensure things can be about as best as they possibly could be for everyone, though, so a scenario where people are being unjustly fucked over to the point of practically being exiled from the community is incredibly far-fetched, barring a few exceptions such as someone being such a detriment to the community that it's more worthwhile to fuck them over.

You haven't responded to me at all, tho. If people can just break away and secede every time a vote doesn't go their way, how are you actually going to get anything done? Because let's say you vote to legalise drugs, prostitution or ban arms by exemple and a third of your community is against that decision and "break away" from you because it went to keep the statu quo, refusing any contact and exchange with you anymore. What are you going to do exactly? You clearly won the vote, but they're now refusing to accept it. What's your recourse?

Furthermore, you've went on about the exact reverse of the point that was made when you talked about people ending up otrascized because they're a detriment to the community as a whole.
What I'm asking you is that, if people who're vital to the community, doctors, engineers, skilled technicians, etc, just threaten to secede if they don't get special advantages or something or the other, what are you exactly going to do? You need them in your community because you need their skills but they're asking for their voice to be worth more than other peoples ones. What's, again, your recourse?

Yeah. Or Militarists. Or fascists. Or capitalists. If everyone can just do a scission over the slightest shit like a trotskyist party on steroid, then how exactly are you going to stop your "collective" from devolving into a thousand of smaller, antagonist ones ?

Becoming something that's very clearly meant to violate the rights of other people in the community is no bueno. :^)

That's... Not an answer. That barely even qualify as a non sequitur.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh dear looks like you've got a problem then.
What are you going to do about feminists, progressives, and the controversy there?

Ah, yes, the manufactured controversy.

It's not manufactured.

[Autarkheia]

9/11 jokes are just plane wrong.

And as this joke proves, it's not even good humour.

You can be surprised how many ancaps deny being right-wing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Torrocca]

Becoming something that's very clearly meant to violate the rights of other people in the community is no bueno. :^)

Private property is a right, amigo.

Not under Anarchism. Personal property sure is, though. :^)

It's simple: first, strive for a mutual consensus where possible, to ensure that people aren't being fucked over, or the fucking over is near-inconsequential. If not possible, then make room for a majority vote so that, at the very least, the fucking over isn't the worst thing in the world. If, for some reason, someone or a group of people feel they're being unjustly fucked over too much by the community, they can air their concerns at a community meeting. Alternatively, they're free to stop associating with the community if they feel the community will refuse to not fuck them over so much.

The point of Anarchism, of course, is to ensure things can be about as best as they possibly could be for everyone, though, so a scenario where people are being unjustly fucked over to the point of practically being exiled from the community is incredibly far-fetched, barring a few exceptions such as someone being such a detriment to the community that it's more worthwhile to fuck them over.

You haven't responded to me at all, tho. If people can just break away and secede every time a vote doesn't go their way, how are you actually going to get anything done? Because let's say you vote to legalise drugs, prostitution or ban arms by exemple and a third of your community is against that decision and "break away" from you because it went to keep the statu quo, refusing any contact and exchange with you anymore. What are you going to do exactly? You clearly won the vote, but they're now refusing to accept it. What's your recourse?

In that case, either try to strike a deal with them or just live life on without them.

Furthermore, you've went on about the exact reverse of the point that was made when you talked about people ending up otrascized because they're a detriment to the community as a whole.
What I'm asking you is that, if people who're vital to the community, doctors, engineers, skilled technicians, etc, just threaten to secede if they don't get special advantages or something or the other, what are you exactly going to do? You need them in your community because you need their skills but they're asking for their voice to be worth more than other peoples ones. What's, again, your recourse?

It'd depend, I suppose, depending on how they're framing their complaints. If they're merely asking for a bit of extra resources or recognition or whatnot to go their way because of their vital work? I'm sure the community wouldn't mind giving over some extra stuff to them. It's not like that's suddenly equivalent to the end of the world or the destruction of Anarchism. It doesn't go against the ideas inherent to Anarchism to go out of the way to make sure people like doctors or other vital personnel are treated well, as long as people are agreeing that that's okay.

If they're specifically striving to have more power than others, though? That's a much, much greater problem with no easy answer from me, at least at the moment. Ideally, a solution would need to be worked out that prevents that without driving the person in question away, though.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Found this test that's rather fun. Basically attempts to determine how much of a Fascist you are. 1.00 being not a Fascist bone in you, and 6.00 being a total Fascist. My main problems with it is that the fact that agreeing will always be the Fascist position means it's easy to be biased against agreeing. That said, I tested my little brother on it without telling him what it was, and he only got a little higher than me. I got a 1.77/6 which is really 0.77 out of 5, so that's the one to beat.

[Frievolk]

Found this test that's rather fun. Basically attempts to determine how much of a Fascist you are. 1.00 being not a Fascist bone in you, and 6.00 being a total Fascist. My main problems with it is that the fact that agreeing will always be the Fascist position means it's easy to be biased against agreeing. That said, I tested my little brother on it without telling him what it was, and he only got a little higher than me. I got a 1.77/6 which is really 0.77 out of 5, so that's the one to beat.

1.73. Huh.

[Grenartia]

I mean, what's the difference between a state and a government that does things you don't like?

This is from one of my books:

To Engels, the state will “wither away” in the second, and possibly final, stage of communism. The idea of a state should, I think, be placed into its historical context. The modern nation state and capitalism are twin vestiges of the European and North American Enlightenment. The two systems, taken together, became the foundation of the capitalist world–system. Capitalism was viewed as a rational, or liberal, economic ideology. The nation state was regarded as a rational, or liberal, alternative to the monarchies which dominated the Western, as well as the Eastern, world. Marx rejected idealism, while favoring materialism, in his Critique of the German Ideology. The nation state and capitalism are part and parcel of the same political economy. Since Marx and Engels were communist internationalists, they denounced the capitalist–based state, not Proletarian world governance.

Ṭarīqaẗ ʾal•Bāhuwiyyaẗ of The Multiversal Communist Collective

Look, I know you're trying your best to plug your book and are trying to make any justification you can towards that end, but that word salad you just quoted did absolutely nothing to answer my question.

I mean, what's the difference between a state and a government that does things you don't like?

The state is, in essence, a compulsory entity that utilizes a monopoly on force to maintain its compulsory nature. A voluntary, direct democratic communal government wouldn't be equivalent, regardless of whether it does likable things or not, because it requires voluntary association and non-aggression (not the NAP, mind you, because that requires upholding private property which requires a state) to be valid as such.

I mean, without a monopoly on force, what keeps people from killing each other like in the Syrian Civil War, or Libya, or half a hundred other places since the fall of the USSR?

And how exactly, does non-aggression differ from the NAP?

That's a prison.



Prisons are used to both hold suspects before a trial, and convicts after the trial.

Fair enough, I hadn't actually known that until today. Should've checked that out.

God, how the hell did I end up agreeing with you over Torra?

... Because ND was suggesting that I was advocating for mid-trial opt-outs when I wasn't?

Sorry, I was rushing through reading it because I was half-focused on Hbomb's stream. I should've paid closer attention.

... Because ND was suggesting that I was advocating for mid-trial opt-outs when I wasn't?

Doesn't sound very voluntary, if you ask me.

This is pretty much my biggest problem with anarchism, and why I'm not an anarchist, because states are so necessary that their existence is inescapable, and their non-existence is undesirable. Though, as I've said before, most of the time, I'll gladly side with the anarchist left before I ever side with the anarchist right, and especially before I'd side with the tankies and fascists.

You can be surprised how many ancaps deny being right-wing.

They can deny it all they want, but they'd be wrong.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Found this test that's rather fun. Basically attempts to determine how much of a Fascist you are. 1.00 being not a Fascist bone in you, and 6.00 being a total Fascist. My main problems with it is that the fact that agreeing will always be the Fascist position means it's easy to be biased against agreeing. That said, I tested my little brother on it without telling him what it was, and he only got a little higher than me. I got a 1.77/6 which is really 0.77 out of 5, so that's the one to beat.

1.73. Huh.

You beat me, but just barely.

[Aellex]

In that case, either try to strike a deal with them or just live life on without them.

With a third of your community missing and refusing entirely to associate with you? What if most of the people belonging to a vital trade were part of that group or the grain silos or any other supply depot was in the zone they now control and they claim it as their?
Are you just going to let it go?

What about other people who feel that, if someone else could have their way in that fashion then so should they and decide to break away from the community in the same fashion. How can you stop your commune from crumbling on itself like so many organization did in similar situations?

It'd depend, I suppose, depending on how they're framing their complaints. If they're merely asking for a bit of extra resources or recognition or whatnot to go their way because of their vital work? I'm sure the community wouldn't mind giving over some extra stuff to them. It's not like that's suddenly equivalent to the end of the world or the destruction of Anarchism. It doesn't go against the ideas inherent to Anarchism to go out of the way to make sure people like doctors or other vital personnel are treated well, as long as people are agreeing that that's okay.

If they're specifically striving to have more power than others, though? That's a much, much greater problem with no easy answer from me, at least at the moment. Ideally, a solution would need to be worked out that prevents that without driving the person in question away, though.

What I'm talking about is those aforementioned vital workers (that's to say doctors, engineers, officers, etc) organizing themselves with an esprit de corps and trying to claim essentially a status of pseudo nobility/medieval bourgeoisie with all the privileges and special treatment that it implies.
If they group themselves into corporations depending on their trades and band together to extract those concessions from the power in place (which is exactly what communes in Europe were originally at their inception, associations of guilds made of mostly middle and upper class people) there is very little you can do but accept their demands.

They hold an overwhelming power because their skills are utterly necessary to the continued existence of the community but the community itself isn't to them as they can just move somewhere else where they will be welcomed.
Add to that that if they do form corporations (which they inevitably will because there is always a kinship among people of the same trade not to mention vested interests), then we will probably see a full return to medieval tier situation because, university and other private schools not existing anymore, it's those people that hold all the power when it comes to education and teaching those skills they know to other people so we'd probably see dynasty forms as they'd try to keep that trade to themselves.

[Dumb Ideologies]

1.73. Huh.

You beat me, but just barely.

4.03. Within the normie category ohohohoh~

...no wait...

"An appropriate score for Americans."

brb just going to drive my NASCAR into an oil well and make self-immolation great again.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You beat me, but just barely.

4.03. Within the normie category ohohohoh~

...no wait...

"An appropriate score for Americans."

brb just going to drive my NASCAR into an oil well and make self-immolation great again.

Wow. Literally hitler confirmed.

[Dumb Ideologies]

4.03. Within the normie category ohohohoh~

...no wait...

"An appropriate score for Americans."

brb just going to drive my NASCAR into an oil well and make self-immolation great again.

Wow. Literally hitler confirmed.

Remove Austrian corporal from premises.

[Kowani]

Found this test that's rather fun. Basically attempts to determine how much of a Fascist you are. 1.00 being not a Fascist bone in you, and 6.00 being a total Fascist. My main problems with it is that the fact that agreeing will always be the Fascist position means it's easy to be biased against agreeing. That said, I tested my little brother on it without telling him what it was, and he only got a little higher than me. I got a 1.77/6 which is really 0.77 out of 5, so that's the one to beat.

1.73. Huh.

1.93. Cynicism catapulted me over the edge.

[Petrolheadia]

1.73. Huh.

1.93. Cynicism catapulted me over the edge.

Try 2.34.