Yeah, down with the violence of the state! Although, to prevent bad actors and armed gangs we do need to have some sort of militia to protect the vulnerable from the greedy and cruel, human nature being what it is. And to prevent said militia from turning into the very thing it was supposed to protect us from, we need some sort of oversight, preferably from a democratically elected body, that tells the militia how to act and prevent them from violating the rights of the people. Oh wait I just reinvented violence of the state hehe.
People in Somalia hearing that America has a 1.8% homelessness rate: “wow. Things are really just as bad over there.”
Oh wait I just reinvented violence of the state hehe
Except if the state is a community voting on how they should be policed, it isn’t really violence, is it?
It is, that community will still have its marginalized groups that don’t get representation, and if anything, on a smaller scale it’s harder to form a group that would argue for necessary support for these people
on a smaller scale it’s harder to form a group that would argue for necessary support for these people
Idk, I kinda gotta disagree with that. Sure, mob violence against “undesirables” is always gonna be a problem, but communities know each other and are less likely to see different constituent groups as “outsiders”
But in this specific example, where we are talking about “how do we decide who gets to use violence to keep the peace,” I think community-based democratic approaches are the best option.
I also gotta disagree with
that community will still have its marginalized groups that don’t get representation
because by definition, if there is a marginalized group, they are not part of that community, and instead would form their own peacekeepers, like Guardian Angels.
Obviously there is a benefit to federalization, I’m not arguing for nor do I support statelessness, but I think if democracy is emphasized from the ground up, those issues naturally tend to erode. Like I think the core problem which necessitates the federal government stepping in to ensure rights comes from a lack of democracy.
but communities know each other and are less likely to see different constituent groups as “outsiders”
Tell that to every gay kid who grew up in a small rural Christian town…
form their own peacekeepers
So you expect every marginalized group to have their own personal cops? What about cross-sectional minorities. I don’t know how this works in your head but whatever you’re trying to say here is not translating well.
So you expect every marginalized group to have their own personal cops?
That is so clearly not what I’m saying, have a good day.
So not the person you’re replying to but maybe instead of disengaging you reevaluate and rephrase because following along that’s sure as shit how I read it too and if that’s not your idea, what is?
I don’t think community policing is state violence.
No it’s still definitely violence. Like, day to day, you try to use violence as little as possible but it is necessary for the laws of society to be backed by violence or people would ignore them. “Violence” doesn’t have to refer to killing people, it means the use of force against somebody without their consent (killing them, arresting them, or evicting/exiling them).
The state we have right now in America and most of Europe is a community that decides how it wants to be policed (i.e. a democracy). Different jurisdictions make different policing decisions and have different outcomes, but they all follow that structure.
The point I was making was that any attempt by anarchists to “overthrow the state” is silly because the “state” will return in a new form as power reconsolidates. If you consider a recognized federal or state government to be a “state” but an armed “anarchist” militia that runs a city to not be a state, that’s just a silly semantic argument.
Yeah, this is a point espoused by people who see themselves as wolves, but end up finding out they are actually pigs.
I hate it when I’m accidentally defending the concept of private property. Both sides are the same, what do words even mean really.
I was about to say. Everyone here who is looking at this through a laptop or phone are guilty of violence according to this comic.
This doesn’t work as well without the rest of the comic.
deleted by creator
That anarchist wolf would make for a sick tattoo
Werewolf: The Apocalypse intensifies!
Underappreciated TTRPG
Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!
We were robbed of a truly incredibly human being when Graeber passed away. I’m a huge fan of “Debt: The First 5000 Years”. And I’m heartbroken that “Bullshit Jobs” was the last publication he produced.
You may be happy to know he and David Wengrow wrote The Dawn of Everything. It was published posthumously but his fingerprints are all over it. Great book to boot! Pirate Enlightenment was also published posthumously. Haven’t had a chance to read it but I think it’s safe to assume it’s great too.
I really loved it (Pirate Enlightenment) as well. It’s not as life changing a read as Debt or Dawn, but its a nice story and gives a little hope in the emergent nature of democracy. Who doesn’t love a pirate story?
The ultimate way to show dominance is to eat your opponent. I’m craving BBQ for dinner, thanks Lemmy!!
The only proper response when a liberal tries to hide behind the NAP no one can freely or willingly enter into a contract under duress of starvation and homelessness.
You mean libertarian. LIberals aren’t stupid enough to believe in a silly non aggression pact.
They call themselves libertarian. But they aren’t. They don’t believe in public ownership of natural resources. A core precept of Libertarianism. Or many of the other things actual libertarians do. Also the NAP isn’t a libertarian thing itself. The man who coined and defined the term PARTICIPATED IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The NAP is a thought short circuiting exercise designed by Rothbard 100 years after the establishment of Libertarianism. To discourage and alienate actual libertarians from the group.
Those that often call themselves libertarian babble about the invisible hand of the market. As well as fetishizing Adam Smith and his ideology. Economic liberalism. Because they are liberals. In the actual political definition of the term. Not the modern colloquial misuse of the term.
deleted by creator
Being a con doesn’t mean it’s liberalism. It just means it’s a con.
deleted by creator
Well it’s definitely not liberalism. It’s such an extreme, it’s well past what liberals would consider effective policy. It’s way beyond laissez-faire capitalism, which is typically the rightmost edge of liberalism. Dunno what you’d call that, but liberalism it ain’t.
deleted by creator
To me a cheeseburger is a helicopter
Then there’s also the little issue of them denying that such a thing as a social contract exists, and I never signed no NAP so I cannot possibly be bound to it.
Or violence of the elite.
