Anarchism

Attached: 46b4580a91d7b1d1e8d84f2502dab3fb1f113a9c0ffb35bf10d235f23f3dd145.png (1350x1296, 1.85M)

That pic makes the USSR look like a fascist shithole.

lmao

Clearly the 20 y/o guy and the 80 y/o granny are equally capable of violence. If nana's pension doesn't come through I expect she'll be out cracking some skulls.

How about I murder someone who was pissing me off then just leave for a different community? Not like there's any organised system capable of chasing me or identifying me, hell I don't even have to use my real name since there's no such thing as a central body issuing ID.

So basically, it's mob justice, because we'll do it right? Let's say farmer Joe is pissed off because someone is rustling his sheep, then he sees that the new guy is roasting up a big lamb feast for his family, and he thinks 'well, he probably did it' and shoots him? I mean it's not like there's any higher authority he can appeal to to get him permission to search the guy's house for a butchery workbench or check his financial records (not that those would exist either), his only choice is to break into his house by force if he wants to get some proof. Do you really not see what a horribly unworkable system this is?

So what you're saying is that if someone uses violence beyond the normal parameters of the society, he'll be punished by the community based on prior agreed upon rules? Yknow, kind of like a state, except shittier and inefficient?

You don't think people would feel solidarity towards the old woman? Our capacity for empathy evens out individual differences in strength.
Why do you assume this? Different communities will definitely want to organize together to enable such systems. But it'll always be on their own terms. That's the important part. If a community feels like it doesn't serve them, then they step out of the arrangement, or demand that it's terms are revised.
There is no higher authority, there is an equal authority. You go have a meeting with other members of the local community and inform them of your suspicions. Then they go to the suspect and inform them that there will be an investigation. If the suspect disagrees, they will have the whole community against them.
If they're smart they'll have streamlined conventions for all of this. It'll be very much like a police department, except built on an entirely different basis.
They aren't "rules," they are at most statements of intention, and can be renegotiated if this suits the members of the community. All I'm saying is that there would be certain conventions that the members of the community understand to be diligent justice, and that they will follow these conventions as long as they prove sufficient to their needs.

not him but i thought i'd respond
which is what the police will do once they get they get a warrant (assuming rules are being followed at least)
which you don't seem to think is mob justice but too me sounds just like mob justice with extra steps.
There is no clear line that separates mob justice from non-mob justice, in the end it's just people using force on other people. We make up systems and rules around it for harm reduction reason but it's still just people doing things to other people.
that's not what a state it, a commune could do this just fine.
btw i'm not even an anarchist and i'm not trying to convince you it's a good ideology but your criticisms of anarchism are extremely weak. you could do with a little more research.

ehh, not really. ML goes against the core anarchist principles, and anarchists aren't anyway liberals(at least not the anarchists worth talking about).

so much wrong here
no it's not, you can have a state without it having a monopoly on violence(see private security)
this only applies to anarchist-egoism, not anarchism as a whole.
no, what you get there is the rule of the strong as many will not have the required force to assert themselves.

i'm sorry, i should have read the bullshit you were up against before calling you out first here>>2847963

both you guys need to do your homework, you are arguing about anarchism and neither of you know anything about it. for shame

Imagine starting a private security company without the permission of the state.
The egoist formulation is the most straightforward and has been adopted by a wide range of anarchist theorists.
Other anarchist theories do not diverge from it too much, except in that they may supplement self-interest with some moral principle. But this makes little functional difference. It is still the same individual that has to decide on these moral matters.
They do have this force when they team up. The idea that there is one group of people called "the strong" and another called "the weak" is a horrible misrepresentation of the facts. People will be stronger or weaker depending on what interest they're trying to defend.
And as I've already pointed out, people tend to have a sense of solidarity towards each other. If you are "weaker" there will always be "stronger" people ready to protect your interests because this pleases them.

that's not what "monopoly" means. you can't start any kind of company without the permission of the state, by your shaggy definition of "monopoly" that would mean the state has a monopoly on literally everything which makes the word "monopoly" useless, or rather your definition of it. your just flat out wrong here.
where do you even get this from?
it's basically just Max Stirner, egoism is despised in most anarchist circles and communes.
no, people are stronger or weaker depending on their resources and weapons.
if i acquire a bunch of guns, i only need a few people on my side to terrorize a town and that would be me violently asserting my interests whenever this suits me
and this is not anarchism.