Explain to me why anarchism isn't a viable option. Its just democracy taken to its logical end point

Explain to me why anarchism isn't a viable option. Its just democracy taken to its logical end point.

Because it requires a) a society-wide consensus, and b) enough trust that everyone will keep it

Because sometimes you need to force people to do things they don’t want.

you'll be snuffed out or enslaved in a day by literally any outside force that wants to

Why? Why couldn't there be defence?

>trying to force an idea
>"but we're totally not going to have a state guys!"
its just retarded shit

No way to organize

not a stable societal model

how will you defend your self if a larger force comes ?

How does any group defend itself if a larger force comes? Why couldn't there be democratically controlled workers militias etc.?

>Why couldn't there be democratically controlled workers militias etc.?
because thats fucking retarded as history showed when the anarchist got utterly BTFO by Lenin and the Red Army

selfishness is advantageous for survival and is attractive.

alright who organizes that? you cant make votes and concensus on war. someone has to be entrusted with the power and responsibility to perform that function. just like administration. you need money to perform those tasks. its only logical everyone chimes in with their own money to have those functions performed for the common good. thats society and thats government. you want to break down something only to reemerge again out of nessecary functions? you know that if you break things that already works it takes effort to put it back together and it wont perform as well.

grow up. get a job.sage

>democracy
awful form of government

Is it though? Game theory and evolutionary science shows that cooperation, not competition is more beneficial in the long run
>someone has to be entrusted with the power and responsibility to perform that function.
Anarchism is not against hierarchy, just unjustified hierarchy

As it currently stands, yes I think most people here would agree. What we have now though is democracy in name only

>anarchism is not against hierachy
wew boys. dont call it anarchy then because thats the definition of anarchy and argue politics without using edgy terms. you are more likely a lolbergtarian now you could argue without looking like a fool

>As it currently stands, yes I think most people here would agree.
then you think anarchism is dumb. How is a direct democracy/elected military going to function at all?

on a small tribal scale where resources are scarce yes.
but larger societies and city states developed as a means of self defense against tribes.
and just because working together is better doesnt mean people will do it.
people still smoke, drink and rape even with the threat of physical violence and death.
theres nothing to keep people working together other than good will, and society needs more than good will to function.

Because want is conflated with need. As long as this remains true, anarchy will always be self destructive.

Most people don't contribute and want gibs. Anarchist societies will be raped, pillaged and annihilated by States because they have industrial complexes, hierarchy in following immediate orders, rigid organization and superior firepower via R&D and mass production. A democratic council will be sluggish in organising, especially different regional cells. Just circumvent the current system and don't live in a big city, my dude. Protest against corporatism and live in a household of 5+ working adults to alleviate the cost of living while pooling/saving for a common fund. Me and my 2 brothers live together and pool in $210k a year and have been saving like kikes the last 7 years. True anarchism might happen if a "Carrington Event" happens. But if not and with future weaponized nanotech, the future is a tad bleak.

>dont call it anarchy then because thats the definition of anarchy
Its not. I dont think you know what you are talking about
> Primarily it is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification. And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just

Oi op, can you answer this?

Force people to do things they don't want? Like what?

Grow up you fucking retard.

nonsense is a good word. idiotic wordsalad is a good several words. what you are talking about is questioning everything. what a concept. have you guys heard about this? crazy right? if you and everyone get to decide for themselves what is "justified" power and what isnt you guys would have political disagreements just like i dont know everyone else ever in the history of the human race. you are not special. call yourself something better cos real anarchy is just village burning

pay for the things everyone uses? like fucking roads? or a common defence force?

No you. You could have a serious discussion or just not post in the thread

Because people who advocate it will never actually move to a country that practices it (Somalia). Ergo, not even anarchists want anarchy. They enjoy civilised society too much to bother.

Yes because when a 14-year old starts telling me about politics I'm definitely going to take him seriously.

Depends on the skin colour of the people
Darker the shade the less likely anarchy would work

Not 14, not talking to you, just leave the thread and go back to right wing circlejerk threads if you want

>Game theory and evolutionary science shows that cooperation, not competition is more beneficial in the long run
Both. Work together with good people and work against bad people. Tribalism is the obvious logical choice based on game theory.

at the end of the day order is what allows society to function and order is ultimately kept with the threat of violence. even with an authoritative figure utilizing the threat of violence can sometimes fail to maintain order
even in black communities with the threat of death for the slightest offense people commit crimes and walk at night with black hoodies.
what makes you think people will work together even though its advantageous? its advantageous to not walk at night with a black hoodie in a bad neighborhood. and offers no advantage to do so and yet people still do it.
anarchy wont work because there is no cure for the human condition that keeps people doing what they want to do instead of whats the smarter thing to do even with the threat of death and nothing of benefit from doing what they want.

Eg. Stop using drugs or stop polluting.

Because democracy is not viable either.

People need roads = people decide that roads get built using the community

thousands of years of sucking authoritarian dick made us need leaders

Now you’re assuming that all people are rational.

You can't have a democratic military, retard. Military is all about decisive action and following orders.

...

>ask for opinion
surprised when people disagree. yeah def not 14 guys

(you)

Yes, in the case of a military of course people would be made responsible for making important decisions, again if it is justified

alright people who didnt pay for the road get to use it? seems like building roads isa terrible investment. they cant? you just created a tariff system out of satans butthole where every patch of road has a tollboth nice job anarchy

>who didnt pay for the road get to use it?
Yea
>seems like building roads isa terrible investment
you could say the same right now

How does anarchy deal with people who don't work?

who are these
>people
?

Everybody? Some guys? A dedicated group? If some people build a road and sacrifice their efforts, wouldn't it be a beneficial strategy to exploit them and just use the road, but not contribute? If some people live in the way of the most sensible path for the road, who should be able to enforce his will, the current dwellers or the builders of the road?

Human society isn't an anarchy, because we have the accumulated experience of thousands of years of human conflicts, this is what shaped the laws and morals we have now.

who decides what is justified? its almost like they are an authority and have a monopoly on force. kinda like a government

>who decides what is justified?
Lets say democratic vote

being mean?
gang beatings?
???magic???

Lovely.

idiotic if you are a settlement you might build your own little roads but no way in hell you pay to have trade routes built and maintained cos there is no money in it everyone can use it. if they cant and has to pay again satans tollbooth

alright we have a 12 hour window to make a strike to get the mission done but there is a moral dillema about our use of force. lets ask the whole country. will work great

>Democracy taken to its logical endpoint.

No user, that's mob rule, quickly followed by dictatorship.

If you read some Polybius, you'd realize even the Ancient Greeks knew this.

While you, with access to 90% of all human knowledge, are still fapping to this fantasy.

>Yea

>encouraging selfishness
is exactly why anarchies are terrible. The most selfish, the least contributing obviously flock to the idea, while others run from it.

and if all the hutus vote that every tutsi should die, that's the law? Besides enforcing democratic ideals is democracy not anarchy, since there is a ruler an archón, the démos.

I'm for syndicalism as in the right of people to associate and freely form communities under the aegis of strasserism, but that's creating civilization, the right opposite of anarchy.

Could be dealt with in several ways. Someone who doesn't work needs something done for them? They don't get it done

Maybe they are expelled from their community?

Again: not anarchy you retard. Now you are just describing naturally forming societies. There's nothing anarchic about anything you are writing about.

How do you measure what’s enough work? Something like guild socialism or syndicalism could work, but not anarchism.

>don't do work for them
>expelled from community
so being mean

>While you, with access to 90% of all human knowledge, are still fapping to this fantasy.
I'm not even an anarchist, just feel like playing devil's advocate and having an argument. You should try it sometime, Sup Forums is perfect for it

they have enough money to live out their live without working and have enough private force to have you the "community" fucked up also he is the main contractor people work for money cos he needs to get things done. just get him out its not like he has freedom to do what he wants to do we are anarchist remember we hate people doing what they want

It's even worse than that. Athens would send out an expedition, then recall it the next day to try the admiral for war crimes.

Alcibiades and the Sicilian expedition if you want to look it up.

Also pic related.

you are an underage retard making a slide thread and being really bad at it.

Contemplate suicide.

>How do you measure what’s enough work?
What do you mean? People need food, people grow enough food. People need houses, people build enough houses.

If there were any issues it could be brought up at community meetings

>Desperately attempting to cover being misinformed by pretending he's "open minded."

Pathetic.

>slide thread
Why? Because its not about Trump or right wing politics? Fuck off mong

im all for small ass government lolbergtarian shit but how can these cunts think the social contract and government are not important is beyond me

Assume that I’m a car maker. How many cars should I make to earn the community’s resources? What if me and the rest of the car makers form a union and agree all to be lazy?

I wouldn't do that if I were you people are gonna be mean and rude to you.

>What if me and the rest of the car makers form a union and agree all to be lazy?
Then there wouldn't be enough cars, people would bring this up at community meetings and it would be dealt with

Nope.
Its a counter parts refusal to appease responsibilty of a new majority.
A bunch of losers to be exact.

Probably because democracy isn't a viable option...

This. A homogeneous cultural norm. AND, sufficient individual enlightenment to know/care that this is a better way to live.

Is this image real or not?

If you think anarchy and democracy in the traditional sense have anything to do with each other you're objectively retarded

hey cunt how about adressing all these points you devil's advocate

Then me and my gang would just ask for more car makers.

Look at democracy for a second.

Look at what it does to countries.

Now tell me what happens when you take it to its logical end point?

Its an anonymous image board I'm not trying to cover up anything nigger

>implement anarchy
>successful guy gets some power
>successful guy shares some power with other individuals in order to maintain power
>organizational hierarchy is developed in successful guy's regime
>rules are developed to maintain order and reduce overhead in regime
>external elements threaten power of regime
>regime conquers external elements and instills a satellite regime to control external threats
>rules are developed to maintain order and reduce overhead in regimes

oh look, statehood was born from anarchy. how curious. moron.

>Yes, in the case of a military of course people would be made responsible for making important decisions
And then these military people, and another prominent dude or group, have a disagreement, escalates to violence, and since the military force has a chain of command and hierarchy, the other group gets their disorganized asses kicked, and you have government again.

Hey OP, other than being a faggit, why are you cherry picking who you answer? The first post answered the question.

...

what if a nigger walked in to our meeting and said "sheeeiiiiitttt where dem white bitches at?" and raped your first born son

Democracy already being a total failure, anarchy will be even worse.

I'm only one person, give me time to get through all these (you)s please
>they have enough money to live out their live without working
There is no money

Vote in what jurdistinction? Who gets to vote? Is it a vote, or everybody writting their own course of action on a 5 page paper? Are you voting for a idea or person? Who gets to decide the ideas or person put forward?
>We decide democraticlly
So basiclly it's just organized government again?

freedom is great we should have more freedom
hey freedom is based on individual rights
we need to have more freedom its great! we have do this with more rights!
maybe we should have the right to have a say in our government
hell why not have a right to have all sovereignty, we could do this by A.) the workers own the means of production or B.) the people are the government. ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY ULTIMATE RIGHT ULTIMATE FREEDOM

>there is no money
so sweet of you to think eliminating a universal measure of worth is gonna make things better try haggling for everything using sheep or whatever you make
think of it as has all the resources to pay for work and live his life out what about then?

>Vote in what jurdistinction?
Lets say on a city/town basis.
>Who gets to vote?
Everyone
>Is it a vote, or everybody writting their own course of action on a 5 page paper?
Anyone would be free to put forward ideas and then have them voted on
>Are you voting for a idea or person? Who gets to decide the ideas or person put forward?
Idea. Everyone.

Your sarcasm doesn't make what you said untrue

anarchism isn't a real society.
democracy is a crap system, it's socialism applied to politics.
Public ownership of the government is a stupid idea.

>Public ownership of the government is a stupid idea.
Why? What would you advocate?

>Who gets to vote?
>Everyone
how does a 2 month old baby vote?
>Is it a vote, or everybody writting their own course of action on a 5 page paper?
>Anyone would be free to put forward ideas and then have them voted on
again we live in this universe with time constraints how does more meaningless semantics gonna help when you have to listen to 50 idiots first
>Are you voting for a idea or person? Who gets to decide the ideas or person put forward?
>Idea. Everyone.
there are infinite ideas limited time this doesnt seem any better than what we have now its worse cos there are more people and issues to voice your opinion on

Monarchism obviously.
Democracy is a blip on the radar, an anomaly, monarchy has proven to be the best government man has ever created.
it is the only form of government which has been tried and met success.
Whereas all other forms of government either haven't been tried or have ended in ruin.
Arguably fascism is the industrialized successor of monarchy.
So we have a concise idea of government in the past as well as government in the present.

I spent over 20 years as a soldier. I have seen Anarchy in practice in Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think you want any part of it. And your average Black Blox fag would either be eaten as food or become a sex slave. That is Anarchy. Pic related.

>monarchy has proven to be the best government man has ever created.
Apart from the inbreeding to keep power in a family

>Lets say on a city/town basis.
Fuck you statist. If I want to vote in city 200km away from me who are you to tell me no bootlicker?
>Everyone
That includes me living in the boonies.
>nyone would be free to put forward ideas and then have them voted on
Cool. I'll put forward my 2,000 page manifesto SOMEONE* can read to the public before we vote.
>Idea. Everyone.
Better be sure you read all these unique ideas. By the way, who's presenting the idea, are we going to vote on that too? Let me get my pen.

war torn countries are not anarchism, at least not in the political or philosophical sense
>Cool. I'll put forward my 2,000 page manifesto SOMEONE* can read to the public before we vote.
This happens now and worse with filibustering