What do you think he meant about this? Kind of telling, isn't it

What do you think he meant about this? Kind of telling, isn't it.

He means commies and socialists need to be hung, brown immigrants have to go back, and the swamp needs to be drained.

Alt-right revolution, keep on forgetting that Sup Forums is in favour of going back to a monarchy style government.

meme-flagger, your ideology starts and ends with smashing things. Reactionaries have not come anywhere close the amount of blood red revolutionaries have spilled.

>He means commies and socialists need to be hung
then why didn't he hung himself?

Anarchists aren't antifa, it's the psyops that use anarchists as a cover, just like anonymous was hijacked to cover for CIA online attacks. It's not like there's a requirement to join, but the ideology is clearly defined.

else Gallagher would be the anarchist leader.

The only effective revolution is one that doesn't result in a leader. New boss, just like the old boss.

Yeah sure but unfortunately for you I've read plenty of anarchist literature. You're part of the red mob.
>The only effective revolution is one that
And so it goes.

He literally did

ya, but the difference is communist believe in dictators. We won't be fooled again.

That doesn't ingratiate yourselves with the right, since we think all of the red mob believes in Utopia just after wading through the river of blood. You don't want a dictator, no gods and masters, but this is something you believe in and will kill for. If you can actually build it is another matter, with bad historical data, but at least the dead won't be complaining about law and order anymore.

I mean, anonymous in it's inception is sort of the first practical application. I see ancom as the future, along side technology. What else is going to happen when robots put everyone out of work. Think Star Trek society. It might be retarded, but unless we go back to having Kings, we're already headed towards decentralization based on automation.

Let me order a big mac on my smartphone right now to prove it. ancap is probably first, but whatever.

There are anarcho-pacifism, but that seems to be the natural tendency of society as we go forwards. so as it stands, I am all for the natural progression of ideology, and you can all suck a fucking cock with your 1930's fedora tipping ideology of communism and fascism.

The future is technology, and robots don't need leaders.

It's cute that you believe adding some technology and primitivism makes your ideology less stale than communism.
>decentralization based on automation.
This is just more "automation will usher the revolution" stuff that you people were talking about in the 1800s man. Btw, why would we have to go back to kings? We don't know how stable fascism could be but it's certainly a pretty democratic and nationalistic thing, very unlike kings. If democracy is here to stay then we won't get any kings. But anyway I never know what to say to you guys because all red revolutionaries believe their ideology to be the end of history. It's so impossible to argue against.
>robots don't need leaders.
This certainly explains you transhumanists' love for the Moloch system.

Basically. Open Source is best. Close source is just better for capitalism.

OH and the king reference was part of the dictatorship that seems to popup for the left and rights extremists. Not much a difference a king and a dictator are both monarchs.

It's not difficult to understand why someone would be against a god or master, and definitely a king. We are bombarded with the evil exploits and greed of leaders day in and day out. Where we part ways is that I don't believe in your anarchist commune. I think it will be a hellhole of blood and despair, not a flowering of human kindness. It's a little annoying to always have to argue with you people as if the right WANTS an evil dictator. Since you believe all dictators (and states) are evil by definition there is not much room to debate. Maybe a good dictator/king could exist, but I have never seen a peaceful anarchy.

There is such things as a benevolent dictator, but it's the reluctant leader. It inevitably falls apart without him. Decentralization will happen eventually. My whole philosophy is to just sustain and preserve until it happens. I mean, a nuclear war with Russia will end any chance of a ancom for sure. The worse the world, the more there is need for a strong leader.

At this point we could elect a fat and lazy reality tv host and the country would pretty much run itself.

>There is such things as a benevolent dictator, but it's the reluctant leader.
I agree. Fat chance we'll find the man through democracy, but find him we must. I understand the problems with dictators and plenary power, but we disagree about the peaceful nature of anarchy. The decentralization you talk about only relates to power structures, because division of labor has already been completed pretty much. However division of labor is very difficult in an anarchy because it requires spectacular coordination. At least the ancaps are sufficiently aware of this, while the commies still believe in bottom-up local democracy by consensus (???). The revolution might be inevitable, but from my perspective the closer we get to anarchy the worse the world is already becoming. When revolution happens, hell follows. Perpetual anarchy spells perpetual revolution to me, à la central africa.

>At this point we could elect a fat and lazy reality tv host and the country would pretty much run itself.
True! But I think that's mostly cause our countries are run by bureaucracies, policy and computers. The orange cheeto simply doesn't have that much power. Doesn't that sound like the very opposite of decentralization though?

The will to power is the fundamental driving force of human behavior.

as an ancom I am all for TRUE classical democracy, of council like jury duty, to be changed often.

The herd is smarter than the individual.

From the side of the dictatorship. To everyone else power is the means, and doesn't justify the ends.

Of course you are, because you believe that the essence of human nature is kindness, cooperation, magical consensus and honesty. Any system where as many people as possible have something to say about everything is better, which is why you are still a communist. You just don't trust stalin to evaporate the state after he's done smashing the capitalists, so you figure it should be decided by democratic consensus. But like I said, at least the ancaps understand that in order to run a society you need some form of private control. What does your democratic anarchy do when they can't decide on something? The question doesn't even make sense to you!

What does a jury do when they can't decide on something, what does a government do, what does a senate do? It's a downvote, unless an agreement can be made.

That's fairly common practice... I don't know why you think that weird. I mean republicans have control of 3 levels of legislation and are struggling passing any major legislation with their own people...

The problem isn't the means, is the end. When the goal is to make profit, the obvious answer is whatever's best for me, but when the goal is to improve, the obvious answer is the most intelligent one.

This is why it's so hard for governments to function with profit, people in the same part have different interests not just between personal values but also business values.

>What does a jury do when they can't decide on something, what does a government do, what does a senate do?
Are you kidding me with this right now? This doesn't happen because their entire purpose is to decide conflicts. You believe blindly and almost annoying smugly that democracy can solve all of the world's problems. That is, every conflict just needs as many people as possible to weigh on and then we can decide what's Good and True. You think that profit is the only thing that fucks people's good intentions and creates conflict? When a jury or government or any kind of authority (you hate them for this, of course) can't decide a conflict, it DECIDES IT ANYWAY. Your search for the holy grail of no responsibility, no judgment, no masters is what's naive. Of course everybody hates all the competition and conflict and fuckery people inflict on each other, but this idea that all that goes away when we are in democracy together (which is PURE competition, btw) is so weird that I don't know what to say about it. Republicans can't pass legislation because they don't control those 3 levels of legislation. There is in fact a permanent civil service bureaucratic monster in the way. Your insistence that all profit is evil is tiresome too btw. I really wish there was a simple way to remove all the marxist idiocy.

>When they can't decide, THEY DECIDES IT ANYWAY

We're dealing with Chuck Norris level power.

I am not against competition but it's easy to lose track of the real goal. Money has always been seen as a corruptible force. That's why all the relgions talk about it.

It's not that currency is evil, the love of money is what is commonly attributable as the root of evil, but really money is just a universal placeholder for work.

When automation puts more and more workers out of jobs, the future is not going to be able who has the KILLER INSTINCTS FOR SURVIVAL HUNTING IN THE JUNGLE, but how do we take care of humanity and the planets we live on? I don't think ancom will stop this, I think it's inevitable part of human progression. Robots taking over the labour force makes the whole means of production is just based on profit when no one has a job. How do you pay for stuff then, might see a merging of business there too.

Colonization of Mars alone is going to show you the future of humanity better than anything. It's not the first time we colonized a planet...

Anarchism is also motivated by the will to power. You wish to destroy hierarchy so that you do not have to surrender personal power to others but lack the confidence to believe you can rise above them.

There is pacifism to anarchy too, it's not defined by violence like the Nazi or the Commies. Destruction as in the evolution, not by the execution.

I feel ancom is the natural evolution of the will of humanity.

everything is downstream from power struggles is what he means. I think this realization was what actually broke my Leftism a few years ago

>We're dealing with Chuck Norris level power.
Ah c'mon man, it's pretty empirically true that authorities really do decide on the cases they're presented with. Maybe they have a hard time and use something stupid to decide, but decide they will. This is simply a description of their power, not some judgment of it.

I share your general distaste of money and don't like capitalism or any kind of pure libertarian system for mostly that reason. That's not to say that I don't want for freedom, but I simply believe anarchy is not the proper setting for personal freedom. It would be lawless and violent, not peaceful and communal. A 'benevolent dictator' could institute a rule of law that does not prey on its population. I don't know how to obtain such a person, but I think it can be done. Whereas government is a complex problem that needs a (benevolent) expert to solve, I think anarchy is predictably messy. Since I don't subscribe to you and Marx's materialistic analysis of society in terms of labor, I don't think robots will inevitably lead to a fall of government. I have read quite a bit on such theories and they failed to convince me, because of their lack of understanding of human nature. Anyway I believe that there are leaders and authorities that are worthy to follow, and that absolute personal authority is not the highest good for any individual, let alone the great masses. But I think we still share some common goals, it's just that I estimate you're overrating humans a bit when placed in the context of anarchy. I also don't like the promise of anarchy when I look at any example in history, including all revolutions.

I think that ancom will happen in my time, I mean Mars colony alone is set to be more like ancom free from any state as it's technically maritime law. Which is ... freedom of sovereignty, by having everyone have sovereignty.

It's retarded sounding, but it's like saying everyone has the power to lift 10lbs, as oppose to saying, we can just lift 10lbs. It's nothing special, nor do we need a special word for doing it. Freedom is freedom.

After Earth, and after Mars, and Europa, and beyond, the concept of a state is going to be gone along with nation under God.

What I don't understand about your system is that you speak of universal personal sovereignty as freedom, yet everyone also has to reach consensus on its use of common property. Someone has to operate the farms in an anarchy, because it is clear that societies with some measure of division of labor do more than a bunch of homesteaders. You speak of going to mars in the setting of pure anarchy, and I think you picture this mentally as sci-fi robots running everything while people have meetings to democratize what buttons to push. Maybe such a robot society can be built, but no matter its particulars I don't believe the town hall meetings of pure equal sovereigns will be as peaceful as you think.

Yes. Its retarded sounding, since its retarded. Mars will be colonized by hard working people, scientists, pioneers and soldiers, with a strong organization, and under the authority of earth.
My god, anarcom are so stupid...its really a mental illness.

>I think that ancom will happen in my time,
You can't actually be this dumb

but earth has no sovereignty. Individual nations do, but not outside their nations, and not outside of Earth.

Either a New World Order would have to be formed to agree on that authority like the UN or whoever is sponsoring the mission. Legally speaking there is no authority they have to acknowledge, like a contract.

It's voluntary. ... hmm volunteer government... where have I heard that before...

Freedom isn't the freedom to endanger others. Power is the means not the end. It's the authoritarian that thinks the ENDS justifies the means, like if we kill off all the opposition, than humanity will be free.

I like Sun Tzu take whole concept better.

Leading is not easy, but for example the first colony the decision isn't going to be what is going to gain you the most power and advantage, but how can I help the whole the best. It's not about if I can get into a power of authority I can earn more money, but if I can get into a power of authority I can help more people.

Robot society, ya, to some extent too. Who knows what technology will come in 100 years.

What is that nonsense ?
Earth sovereignty will be as its governments decide. The people sent will be chosen for the task with extreme precaution and only the best and most disciplined, ready to follow a plan and loyals, will be sent.
No idiotic commie will be sent on mars. For what ? Fucking up the whole project ? There is no room for bullshit, no freedom, in such a project, when every hour of the day will be used to survive. No democracy, no individualism, but a group of people following the plan. Since otherwise they die. O god. Stop posting. Its cancer to read you.

Who knows how long that will be.

Earth governments will decide? Is there a name for that authority? Or is it to be decided. It's considered maritime law, but that's because it's decided that Earths governments are not allowed authority outside of Earth (mostly because of the moon landings).

People will be sent out with a task, but it's not like they're doing it for profit? Most of them are never coming back to Earth.


To be honest the only real authority that can be applied off planet is actually corporations. So we'll see if it eventually expands to ancap eventually but ancom is the kind of the starting base. Not been much explanation about this.

Earth might come up with an authority in the future, who knows. Still a few more years left.

All this confusing talk of mystical 'power' but can you explain to me the simple context of the townhall meeting of sovereigns?
>Freedom isn't the freedom to endanger others
How are the sovereigns going to decide on this? You are the one that says if anyone opposed to anarchy is eliminated then we can have personal sovereignty. What if some of your sovereigns decide to follow a leader, someone with 'authority'? Where does this "how can I help the whole the best?" come from? You never explain why the absence of any kind of system of power results in people only wanting the best for "the whole", and this goal being so crystal clear that everyone can democratically decide on it. Why even have a democracy then? You keep sidestepping the problem of explaining why arbitrary groups of sovereigns will be able to reach consensus on everything, making authority unnecessary.

They will obey because they will rely on Earth shipments for generations. And when the time they no longer need them, they will have a government with soldiers memeflag. Soldiers who will shoot people endangering the whole colony.
Stop. Its pathetic. You fap on retarded shit like " wut is sovereignty?" While ignoring how the project woyld proceed. There is simply no place for people like you. Colonies will be the most hordcore things a human can endure, and they will be too busy building to even think on disobeying. Their life being the only thing that matters. Stop. You are ridiculous. Without censcorship and cops to protect you, a nanny state to feed you, you wouldnt even exist.

He means the United States was Jewed before we even got a chance to know we were fooled.

Oh sorry, sovereign is considered 'state' authority. Like kings have sovereignty. Power as in authority, as independent of sovereignty.


Anyways, so this is why if everyone has their freedom, there is no sovereignty. There is no need to have an authority. Sovereignty is supreme power, over something or someone. It's part jurisdictions and dominion and rule.

People as individuals don't have jurisdiction and dominion and rule. Sovereignty is basically the artificial representation of a parent.

Well it's like any group that's out by themselves as equals. All things being equal, the benefit to whole benefits you. In fact the more you help the better. If you're not worried about earnings, and instead on production for survival sake, it's easy to imagine this. It's not a fairytale, it's more a survival horror.

Democracy at its purest is the voice of everyone. Democracy isn't a series of representatives speaking for the whole. That's what modern democracy is. The vote is a reflection of democracy, the authority given to the one person isn't democracy, that's the result of a democracy.

It's a good means of decision, it's fair and take into account the herd intelligence which is better then the sum of the whole. Astronauts don't do what is profitable, but what is smart. That's maybe the biggest problem with politics, it's not the policies, it's the retarded consitutiants.

Smarter voters, would make a better government.

>wall of nonsense text
There are no voters in a colony retard. No room for the luxury of dissent dumb fuck. Its actually fascism incarnated. One goal, one plan, do or die. You cant be THAT stupid...

What on earth are you talking about man, that is not the definition of sovereignty.
>All things being equal, the benefit to whole benefits you. In fact the more you help the better.
That with
>survival horror
makes me understand less and less of this supposed deeply rooted immortal concept of "benefit to the whole" we all share. You want the "voice of everyone" to be heard, but you don't explain how they will agree on everything. We're just going around in circles where you claim that once 'power' is eradicated from the earth, everybody will be able to agree on what to do and conflicts will be gone.

kill yourself

no no keep up the fanfic, so there's soldiers now? They fighting demons or something?

I don't get it, do you think anarchists are antifa or something? Anarchists philosophy doesn't include violence, there is anarchist-pacifists even. That the means government can change peacefully. It's not like it's going to be labeled a communism.

Maritime Law as such does not and will not apply in Mars, though the principles of maritime law has influenced the development of space law. The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS III) is the convention/treaty governing the law of the sea, almost all nations are a party to the convention (a notable exception is the United States). Thus, though both the high seas and space(including celestial bodies) have been declared "res communis" (crudely means common to all mankind), maritime law which deals with seas has no application in space.

The Law of Outer Space shall apply at Mars. It consists of the "Outer Space Treaty", "the Rescue Agreement", "the Liability Convention", "the Registration Convention", and "the Moon Agreement". While the Outer Space Treaty contains the basic principles of space law, as Mars is a Celestial Body within the solar system it shall be governed by "the Moon Agreement" which deals with the law governing human actions on the Moon and other celestial objects. (until a separate agreement for Mars is arrived at).

Seriously look up the laws on mars, it's interesting and due to change too, there's even been ideas for a flag made by NASA that ... who knows will stick as red, green, blue based on some mars sci fi novel.

Who has authority to vote for it's flag? Who had authority to make the V for Vendetta mask the symbol of anonymous? These memes just happen. That's why I come to Sup Forums.

If your philosophy doesnt include violence, and mine does, you lose. Btfo in one sentence. Ahahahaha.
>blablabla more meme nonsense and strwaman
Back to work now retard. The colony needs its stuff. No ? Then no food for you.

Fascism control of industry and commerce, in a society with no industry and commerce, because of limited resources. Stateless societies based on voluntary associations, can still have leaders.

Don't kid yourself that anything that fedora tipping Hitler will be relevant in a 1000 years.

Then tell me more about the soldiers who will shoot people endangering the whole colony. What happens next?

You read a lot of sci-fi don't you?

Wish life was that exciting.

>blablabla muh safe space... in space.
Like any corporations or governments would pay to send useless morons in space, or allow you to communicate with them. I thought you were stupid. Its worse. I need a need word.

They are called security forces. You know, like irl brainlet. They exist, unlike societies without states. Kek

Ya... I don't think xenomorphs or demon forces are going to be a big threat. Obviously if security forces are needed, that will a next evolution.

Who knows tho, maybe they will need space marine. That is my dream job.

>aliens and demons
Oh, you mean democrats?

>security forces do not exist because muh xenomorphs
Dumbass. The main reason security forces/soldiers/cops exist is to make people obey. Now back to work colonist, unless you want to spend the day in jail.

What's the main reason people don't obey? Mental Illness?

No. Thats the reason you post and believe in a idiotic ideology that is as real as the monster of Loch Ness.

If this thread was an ancom society and we decided by majority to hang you because you smell what would you do?

The ends are actually things like prosperity and happiness but one cannot attain those by simply making them a primary goal, so to the pragmatic mind power might as well be looked at as the ends.