Why does this sound like a bad idea to you?

why does this sound like a bad idea to you?

Other urls found in this thread:

kevinacarson.org/pdf/drs.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I sure do love being ruled by a bloodthirsty warlord and having no access to water or electricity.

Sounds fucking great op!

Because much like Communism what you write on paper isn't going to be the reality of your utopia

It doesn't. Straight up un-hyphenated anarchism is the thinking man's political orientation tbqhwyf

Oh my. It warmed my heart to see an Anarchism thread among all this shitposting.

gtfo nigger

>Implying any form of anarchism won't break down into small self-governing communities that function identically to a state.

I think it's about time you outgrew your edgy, rebellious phase and entered the real world

I mean I'm probably making moves towards bed soon, so.

Except when the government collapses, humans of all races would just ban together in their own gangs and ethnic groups. In the end, the ones with the intelligence, resources, and superior firepower will rule over the rest of them, ie white men. That's how we got to where we were in the first place. History will just repeat itself. Anarchists are retarded

>Except when the government collapses

Who said anything about collapse?

daddy issues the ideology

it doesn't "sound bad" OP, it "sounds great" the problem is the very real practical problems that arise when you abolish the government altogether. i'm not just talking about the poverty or the crime or any of that either. i'm talking more about the innate human instinct to organize, and "government" is essentially just another term for large-scale human organization. SO when you "abolish government" what you are essentially doing is leaving a vacuum for new governments to flourish. problem being that you don't know what "kind" of government is going to flourish, and in all likelihood it won't be something as good as what we have now (flawed as our current system and governmental infrastructure is).

i'm not interested in your denial of these basic tenets by the way. the anarchists inability to recognize certain facts like these ones IS the reason nobody takes them seriously.

What needs to happen for anarchistan to come to fruition, genius?

I think it's fair to point out that Anarchists, in general, have a very strong belief in humanity's social tendencies and, as you said, innate instinct to organize. The underlying thread of Anarchist theory is, though, that there are specific forms of organization (such as government) that are either unjust or undesirable for various reasons.

>What needs to happen for anarchistan to come to fruition, genius?

Honestly, I think it would take a society where a large portion of the population actually believe that Anarchism can happen. It's not going to happen because some Weather Underground type assassinated a president. It's going to happen when (if?) enough people decide they don't need other folks running their lives.

it's the political ideological equivalent of your teenage rebellious phase against your parents and you CANNOT prove me wrong on this

>why does this sound like a bad idea to you?
Try to enforce it, go on, just try it.

>I think it's fair to point out that Anarchists, in general, have a very strong belief in humanity's social tendencies and, as you said, innate instinct to organize. The underlying thread of Anarchist theory is, though, that there are specific forms of organization (such as government) that are either unjust or undesirable for various reasons.
fine that's your opinion you are entitled to, but your kind of missing the point which is that in a vacuum left by no government, more government will form. "government" is just a term for large scale organized social behavior, essentially. because this is a natural part of human nature, it will naturally spring up in the absence of a government. this is the problem that "anarchists" always refuse to address or even recognize. they just try to make excuses or avoid the question. obviously there's no answer for it because this is just reality.
it's literally a law of physics, written into the fabric of the universe, that order will spring from chaos.

...

Anarchy doesn't truly exist. It's an ideology that sounds good on paper like communism, but goes against human nature. Accept it.

>why does this sound like a bad idea to you?
because it presupposes that all humans are of equal temperament and intelligence. if an anarchist type government was suited to human nature we'd have had one by now.
inb4 muh catalunya

Again, you're defining "government" differently than Anarchists are. Your last statements is basically a cliffnote of motherfuckin' PJ Proudon himself. Anarchists have wet dreams about organizational models. They simply assert that any organizational model based on power imbalances is immoral/ineffective.

>but goes against human nature

Elaborate?

of all of the anarchist philosophies, anarcho capitalism is the one that actually has the best chance of actually working though, since it recognizes the human tendency towards order and organization, and accepts and even embraces this tendency, just in the form of private companies rather than civic government.

i'm not an anarcho capitalist either. i think the philosophy is full of bad ideas just like all anarchist philosophy, but i'm just saying, of all of them it's technically the least retarded one in a lot of ways. the "anarcho communists" are the dumbest of all. too stupid to even understand the inherent oxymoron in their beliefs.

it doesn´t sound bad if you live on fantasy island and don´t think about it

Some people need to be ruled over. Same thing why you don’t let children play with guns.

well here we go as usual. typical anarchist response. "you're using a different definition of this word!" with no actual substance. look it doesn't matter what "the definitions of your words" are in whatever little snowflake ideology you have is. there is reality. you abolish government, more government pops up in the vacuum. end of story. it's not that complicated. like i said, nobody takes anarchists seriously because every time they're confronted with this reality they simply gaslight in the same ways you're trying to right now. congrats, you're a walking meme.

>because it presupposes that all humans are of equal temperament and intelligence

Says who?

>if an anarchist type government was suited to human nature we'd have had one by now

What's the difference between making this statement now and making a similar statement about nation-States when Feudalism was the ruling form of organization?

BTW if you look at other "anarchist societies" that have actually existed, even in the modern world, like revolutionary spain, you'll see that what i'm saying physically happens. it's not "made up" and it doesn't matter what sort of stupid arguments you want to make about "muh definitions". this is harsh and indisputable reality. the end.

>anarcho-capitalism
>not based Mutualism

Hey, I'm trying to respond in good faith here. It seems like you're using "government" synonymously with "organization." Anarchists, basically as a rule, do not. If we're not agreed on the meanings we're assigning behind some of the most basic and important words involved in this discussion we're not going to move forward at all.

>no rules
>no people may rule over another
Pick one.

>Says who?
it's implied in the definition of anarchism, non heirarchical self government.
>What's the difference between making this statement now and making a similar statement about nation-States
>nation states
you answered your own question.

>this is harsh and indisputable reality

That historical Anarchist societies have often fallen at the hands of hostile governments? Sure, that's a fact. I won't argue with that. I find that among the less disconcerting outcomes. None of these societies failed form an internally inconsistent organizational model. They failed because they couldn't successfully fight off States that realized they would be a PR problem. I think trying to solve the problem of how to successfully defend against hostile States is lightyears better than having an organizational model that, internally, is a non-starter.

>that historical Anarchist societies have often fallen at the hands of hostile governments?
catalunya didn't fall at the hand of anyone but themselves. they literally cannibalized each other.

>it's implied in the definition of anarchism

I wouldn't say so. Anarchists aren't opposed of hierarchy as a matter of fact. Bakunin has a famous statement about, for instance, on the matter of boots, deferring to the authority of the bootmaker. Hierarchy is always going to be present in some form or another. The idea is to organize such that authority is only deferred to voluntarily, and that hierarchy isn't entrenched by established systems of power. Bakunin doesn't defer to the bootmaker because he has a gun to his head. He defers to the bootmaker because he's an **authority** on making boots.

But what if I want to be ruled over?

>Hey, I'm trying to respond in good faith here. It seems like you're using "government" synonymously with "organization." Anarchists, basically as a rule, do not. If we're not agreed on the meanings we're assigning behind some of the most basic and important words involved in this discussion we're not going to move forward at all.
dude i don't care about your supposed "good faith" cuz its not "good faith" when you make these stupid gaslighting arguments about definitions and trying to change their meanings to suit you.
i said before you can call it whatever you want, but humans are going to organize and they're going to organize INTO GOVERNMENTS. yes, buddy, i KNOW that "anarchists" like to conveniently and dishonestly reterm organization in their hypothetical utopias as "not government". but guess what? it IS government and in many cases (such as the anarcho communist philosophy) it's FAR more restrictive and organized and oppressive than the government we have now. it IS GOVERNMENT.

earlier there was a thread on here about some chick that molested a kid, admitted it, and then said "but im not a molester though". this is what anarchists sound like. its just so stupid. you're going to create this big oppressive totalitarian government to enforce the principles of your utopia but you say "it's not government though" and you adamantly refuse to accept that it is. and when confronted you just act pompous about it like everyone else is just stupider than you and such an ignorant pleb because they didn't read your favorite anarchist author and they don't see it 100% the same way you do. in reality, they just see through your fucking bullshit.

therefore people dont' take you seriously and you disgust them.

I'm honestly so out of practice arguing anything related to Anarchism that I don't have much I can say in the way of defending Catalonia anymore, but you haven't really put forward any arguments in lieu of just making statements, so.

See ()

>I wouldn't say so.
I know you wouldn't, but it happens to be the truth. Non heirarchical implies complete equality. The barber is the same as the doctor is the same as the ditch digger.

you just admitted i was right and then said "yeah but im gonna continue to believe this anyway cuz i like it" yeah ok dude go kill yourself i dunno.

>I don't have much I can say in the way of defending Catalonia
Well, if you're going to advocate for any type of anarchism, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the well recorded history of the catalunya experiment.

You're making this conversation a non-starter. If you can't agree that there's an inherent difference, even if only theoretically, between completely consensual models of organization and non-consensual models of organization, than there literally isn't anything to discuss.

>it IS government and in many cases (such as the anarcho communist philosophy) it's FAR more restrictive and organized and oppressive than the government we have now

I'm not a communist, but I lived on a commune for quite a while and, honestly, people there didn't tell me what to do or think at all, and certainly not nearly as much as the government does.

Because economic incentives create a propensity for instability when aspirations of the complacent are not regulated.

So what happens with children? Do anarchists just throw them to the wild so that they can be their own autonomous person at age 0 like a sea turtle? Or do the kids turn into those things you see screaming in a toy store until the parent gives up and buys them the toy?

Once more, non-hierarchy in the sense that there aren't established systems of power entrenching some folks' rule over others. I don't think I've ever met an Anarchist who made the argument that all people are literally equal.

I was pretty well versed in all this about 4 years ago but I've fallen out of practice since then. One of those situations where you remember the conclusions you arrived at and had good reason for arriving there but can't really make the arguments with the same strength you were used to.

I mostly just posted here for nostalgia's sake anyway. I'm not particularly invested in changing any minds or making any case.

>completely consensual models of organization
This is where your model breaks down. I don't want to work, I want a nice house and I want you to feed me, multiply that by millions. Now wat do?

Thats not how humanity works m8

>no person may rule over another
don't tell me what to do

i don't care if the conversation is a "non-starter" for fucks sake, fuck off man

>I'm not a communist, but I lived on a commune for quite a while and, honestly, people there didn't tell me what to do or think at all, and certainly not nearly as much as the government does.
lmfao the truth is beginning to come out here.

BTW a "commune" is not capable of enforcing values, removing private property from everyone else (anarcho communists) or any of the other crap that anarchists would need to do to maintain their utopia.

and if you don't think "communes" ALL inherently have their own local governments then you're just being dishonest. go steal someones shit and you will face consequences. go rape a woman you will face consequences. don't pull your weight and you will face consequences. and of course there are always "leaders". this is what i'm talking about. you fucking people like to just say "well this isn't government" because you're fucking insane, deluded and dishonest.

fuck off man, you're sad, i honestly dont' want to talk to you anymore.

>I don't want to work, I want a nice house and I want you to feed me, multiply that by millions. Now wat do?

Honestly, I'm a Mutualist so economies are largely dictated by stigmergic markets. If you don't want to work that's totally your right, but, you know, you might just die of starvation or exposure.

Although I'm definitely not shitting on Mutual Aid for those who aren't as able to readily enter the workforce.

See you at the top :-)

>why does this sound like a bad idea to you?
this is what anarchism is

-wonna help me built a cool house and then we can build a cool house for you??
-fuck off
-but....
-fuck off

a month passes

-hey dude in a cool house can i sleep this winter over at your cool house
-fuck off
-but...
-fuck off

dude without a house burns down the cool house and runs away

everyone is without a house in the winter
everyone is like really cold

anarchism really fucking works.

No, and even if think so, then too bad you evolved from a fucking lobster that naturally seeks power structure and hierarchy, and inherited that neurological trait.

Only possible by transcendence of physical body

also does it occur to you even that your hippie commune friends didn't "tell you what to think" because you were already ideologically aligned with them? you were all hippie commune fags, of course they don't need to "Tell you what to think" you're all people who specifically chose to live the same lifestyle in the same place. jesus you don't see the difference between that and between "anarchism as a normal way of life" when it's brought to, say for example, 300 million americans? when its brought to town in the suburbs? or densely crowded urban areas?

for fucks sake man, i say again, this is WHY people don't take you people seriously. you went off and lived in the woods with a bunch of hippie fucks exactly like you and you thoguth it worked out well and so you thought it would make a viable form of "government" for EVERYONE.

> I don't think I've ever met an Anarchist who made the argument that all people are literally equal.
Then you've never met an anarchist or you're misinformed. It's literally implied in the definition and is the cornerstone of the philosophy. This is why catalunya failed, the ditch digger and the doctor had equal standing in society.

Since when did Anarchists decry consequences for literal criminal activity? Should I just agree to use "government" and "organization" synonymously? I doesn't really matter all that much to me.

Jesus Christ, so this is what ideology does to a person.
Humanity is doomed.

>One of those situations where you remember the conclusions you arrived at and had good reason for arriving there
Well, give me your conclusions then.

Doesn't work. Every species on the planet has some hierarchy of some kind to keep their social groups in order and check. Humans are inherently selfish and so need to be in order otherwise it would be chaos.

How to implement without ruling over people?
Can be no revolution, requires 100% consensus.

Any anarchism, freedom, democracy etc turns to dictatorship.

>If you don't want to work that's totally your right, but, you know, you might just die of starvation or exposure.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Your anarchist paradise is attacked by evil capitalists and you need to form an army, I don't kill people, multiply by a million. Wat do?

Because the person with the power will always rule, anarchy enables them to rules with no safe guards to protect the people. It's for sheltered retards who don't realize the strong will always stand above the weak.

>America turns to Anarchy
>gets invaded by foreign countries because no government or military to defend it's sovereignty

>because you were already ideologically aligned with them?

Actually, honestly, there was very little ideological homogeny there. In fact, in the 80s, they needed to write up a mission statement to comply with IRS tax code, and the only thing everyone in the community could agree upon as a common value was ecology.

>when it's brought to, say for example, 300 million americans? when its brought to town in the suburbs? or densely crowded urban areas?

I think that's the benefit of Anarchism. People can naturally organize into affinity groups with common values and ways of living. I think society as a whole would be incredibly diverse but that, on micro scales, people would probably live with others of similar mind.

>you went off and lived in the woods with a bunch of hippie fucks exactly like you and you thoguth it worked out well and so you thought it would make a viable form of "government" for EVERYONE.

I never said that. I honestly don't think Anarcho-Communism is that great. I'm too partial to markets. But again, that's the beauty. I can live in my Mutualist wet dream, the AnComs can go live on hippy communes, and you can do whatever the fuck it is you want to do, which is apparently be angry on the internet.

>commune
communism

OP is assuming anarchism which is a high form of individualism.

you can't have a commune in anarchism coz YOU CAN'T TELL ANYONE WHAT TO DO

anarchism is eahc on his own. where the more able people will build a house for themselves

and the majority of unable idiots will rush that house and destroy any signs of civilization due to simple jealousy

most anons who larps as anarchist are in reality commies in a shell

real anarchism is only achievable if you have super powers to protect your individualism

as in.. super-powers as in super-heroes

as in surround yourself with an impenetrable shield and have laser vision to burn any threat

Because that statement is a rule.
And rules need consequences and people to enforce them in order to work. And people to decide who is breaking the rule and who is not.
Which is a system with roles for judges, cops and lawmakers (with cool different names)
Which is what anarchism doesn't want.

>t. ex-anarchist

Mostly "markets are dope. Capitalism and governments can fuck off."

> I don't kill people, multiply by a million. Wat do?

If a pacifist society gets attacked they're probably fucked. I don't really see too many of them making it.

Forgot to tag.

> I don't kill people, multiply by a million. Wat do?

If a pacifist society gets attacked they're probably fucked. I don't really see too many of them making it.

>Be early man
>Realise that nature and malevolence is against me
>Organise myself automatically into a dominance hierarchy and live within its structure

No man is an island OP!

>they're probably fucked.
Now we're making real progress. How can an anarchist society protect itself from without and within?

Honestly, I think this is the biggest question that Anarchists have to answer, nowadays. I'm not particularly equipped to elucidate on it, but Kevin Carson writes about it at length in Chapter 12 here.

kevinacarson.org/pdf/drs.pdf

The concept of Anarchy is flawed from the very beginning because Humans will always seek power. Anarchy will only result in a lot of innocent death and TPTB currently being replaced by a new TPTB. For example you instate anarchy, govt. is dead and everyone is running around doing whatever they want. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that fairy dust has kept the massive utilities infrastructure from collapsing. So whats to stop an enterprising young lad of well means from hiring a bunch unscrupulous characters to enforce his will upon the surrounding lands. This upstart then uses his captured gains to expand his influence until he comes up against a similar person who has enough power to resist his influence. Now what? Well he forms an alliance with another group to gain an advantage, but so to does his opponent. So on an so forth until nations are formed, crushed, absorbed and restructured and you end up right where you started, a group of beings ruling the land you live in. If you want to change how things are, run for office.

You will learn it yourself when you will stop being a teenager.

>Actually, honestly, there was very little ideological homogeny there. In fact, in the 80s, they needed to write up a mission statement to comply with IRS tax code, and the only thing everyone in the community could agree upon as a common value was ecology.
jesus christ you are only proving my point. you're too stupid and lacking self-awareness to see it.
>I think that's the benefit of Anarchism. People can naturally organize into affinity groups with common values and ways of living
people ARE naturally organized you idiot. they naturally organized the system you see before you now. everywhere you go in the world that you find humans, you find government of some sort. and as soon as those humans develop the ability to communicate with other groups of humans, they either fight until the other group dies, or they link their governments and expand to encompass both groups. wake the fuck up and accept the facts. your little hippie commune was full of people who WANTED to live like you. who WANTED to live that way. those people are not representative of the average human life. for fucks sake man, how many fucking drugs did you do in that commune cuz your brain seems fried.
>I never said that. I honestly don't think Anarcho-Communism is that great. I'm too partial to markets. But again, that's the beauty. I can live in my Mutualist wet dream, the AnComs can go live on hippy communes, and you can do whatever the fuck it is you want to do, which is apparently be angry on the internet
you will be invaded by the first person who develops an ideology that is counter to your own and this is an undeniable and unavoidable reality of humanity and there's simply no way around it and if you choose not to accept it or recognize then, as i've said many times, it simply demonstrates EXACTLY why people do not take "anarchists" of any sort seriously.

It's only protection from the outside is being isolated, having nothing of value and fighting really hard. So it isn't worth the trouble for anyone to get there to face a bunch of lunatics that fight to death and have nothing that you want.

That's pretty much what happened in rural Spain until modern times, which many claim to be pre-anarchist communities. And that's why anarchism had such a good acceptance here.

basically my response to this is "yes".

>ANARCHY OPPOSES RULES! HAHA RULES ARE SPOOKS
>anyway...our first rule is you shouldn't...
>no rules...just plz don't do this, and that, and this, cause then our anarchist utopia wouldn't work! ok?
why are anarchists such brainlets

i know you're a shitposter but i'm also aware this board gets raided out the ass day in day out by people i have a chance to leave a good impression on.

you cannot simply have an anarchist state that relies on everyone agreeing to simply not rule over each other, let's imagine what the world would look like if the USA suddenly managed to be able to accomplish that.

Russia with no USA breathing down their necks would, i don't fucking know, they'd probably sit up there and shoot some insurgents as they please.

China would definitely take advantage of a lack of US presence, support a north korean invasion of the south, possibly launch an invasion on japan after necking Taiwan while bullying the rest of the nan hai powers out of the area.

The middle east? a lot fucking changes here.

a lack of help to israel will either cause it to get wiped or glass the surrounding area after taking what they want, or you get the other major powers launching their own invasion into israel as well as saudi arabia. needless to say it'll be bloody before some semblance of order is done.

Africans die really quickly before they too sort themselves out and manage to balance a population they can feed themselves along with redrawing the borders.

Canada will wave at us

now Mexico might get testy and take back texas and some other territories, finally we reach the USA.

order is needed for many luxuries and goods, we're still not in post scarcity so you can bet that a lot of people who aren't aware of how to fend for themselves are going to die or start to eat each other. big metropolitan area's become a thing of the past due to a combination of them simply not being sustainable without the existence of a large government in charge of them, as well as the fact that most of them are as packed as they are to allow them to carry democrat votes.

ultimately, we need to just assume we won't get invaded by anyone at all for any sort of reason. Do you think everyone is that nice?

I don't understand your post, explain it in Spanish if you like. You're speaking with a Spaniard, btw.

>your little hippie commune was full of people who WANTED to live like you. who WANTED to live that way. those people are not representative of the average human life

Agreed. I think I said towards the beginning of the thread that a precondition for Anarchism is that a majority of people in a society want Anarchism. I think that's pretty plain and simple. I'm not particularly optimistic about it happening in my lifetime, but hey, one can dream.

>you will be invaded by the first person who develops an ideology that is counter to your own and this is an undeniable and unavoidable reality of humanity

I'm not really putting up any in detail arguments here cause, as I've said, I'm about 4 years out of practice, but I'd just like to point out that you haven't made a single argument this entire time, either. You've responded to anything I've said with simple "statements of fact" without any backing.

As far as national defense goes, see here ()

Continuing on, let's become a little bit less idealistic here.

We need to assume that anarchistic societies have a good means of defending themselves. A lack of structure for a government means you have no army to defend the interest of other anarchists who want to live in anarchy.

Meaning that as soon as someone in the USA gets the bright idea to conquer, we're right back to square one. Only now the only person we have to fight with is mexico for a good while assuming we didn't dismantle our aircraft carriers

What part you don't understand?
I was answering to:
> How can an anarchist society protect itself from without and within?

>As far as national defense goes, see here ()
"SOMEONE SAID IT WOULD BE OK SO THEREFORE IT WOULD BE OK"
do you remember when i predicted you would do this here: >and when confronted you just act pompous about it like everyone else is just stupider than you and such an ignorant pleb because they didn't read your favorite anarchist author and they don't see it 100% the same way you do. in reality, they just see through your fucking bullshit.

>your post
Ok, fair enough. I don't see how he can mount a reasonable defense but I'll read it with an open mind when I have time.

Im all for anarchism. That way when Stratocracy takes off we can roll over you individualistic retards in a day.

It is not a bad idear. However you forgot to mention that in anarchism there are still rules. That includes "natural laws". Also basic curtacy laws like dont steal, dont harm others. So anarchy doesnt mean open borders and ppl come in and steal food and lands. In anarchy you can defend it by force.

I've been pretty transparent that I'm not particularly equipped to argue effectively in favor of Anarchism anymore. As I said, I'm posting mostly for nostalgia's sake. Some really good Anarchist discussion happened here on Sup Forums 4 or 5 years ago.

I would feel bad about being a tease but you haven't made a single argument this entire time either. You've simply said "this is the case" without saying why, which we're both equally guilty of. I posted a pretty concise chapter in a pretty concise book on Anarchist National Defense if you wanted it, but I really don't think you actually care.

Word. Honestly I think most anything put out by c4ss is worth reading, even if you don't agree with it, because they often put out the steelman case of arguments that might be in opposition to one's own.

>It's only protection from the outside is being isolated, having nothing of value and fighting really hard. So it isn't worth the trouble for anyone to get there to face a bunch of lunatics that fight to death and have nothing that you want.
This. You need to explain it more clearly.
What do you mean by isolated?
What do you mean by having nothing of value?
Who are the lunatics?
Why are you assuming a nation wouldn't invade another nation based on simple conquest or for ideological reasons?

>Anarchism.

I remember when I was 15 years old too.

Because every Anarchist ever was a pushy cunt.

Actually anarchisms isn't that bad at all. It's an ideology based on trust, discipline and the power of will, a constant fight for integrity - because there's no a priori rules or enforcements of rules by authorities.
The thing is Anarchism does not work when faced with competing systems (and there will always be competing systems), as the spanish civil war has shown. It is not dangerous as ist will inevitably succumb to other systems quite quickly. Communism is far more dangerous as commies can uphold their reign much longer.
It's hilarious how modern anarchists (parts of antifa) hate discipline and righteousness of morale. They are too dumb to understand what their own ideology requires...

What if a criminal want to do...criminal stuff ? Do we need his consent on stopping killing/rapping/... ? Force him to stop ? Who does this, since, remember, no police ? What are the criteria, since no laws but "consensus" ? Who educate children ? Etc.
Anarchy "works", only in very small scale and for very simple tasks, and mostly because of access to governed societies products and services. And as long as another group of people do not decide to beat their sorry asses. No, the cant fight back. How a group of anarchists will prevail against an army, or even a platoon of said army ? Never. Throw little tantrums at tanks, and get 7.62 lead for answers.
Anarchy is based on a logical fallacy: if we can organize a mob or a birthday party, we can manage a country. Not happening. Ever.

the natural state of man. you're smrt user.

> Isolated
Hard to get to. + In a place you don't just pass by. You only go there on purpose, because is not on the way to any other place. A place without roads or donkey paths. A place deep in the mountains.

> nothing of value
There is no gold or resources, there is nothing you can take. The only things you can take are what little surplus its inhabitants have saved for the winter and it's youth, to be used as slaves or soldiers.

> lunatics
People form those isolated communities will defend to death what little they have. You will literally have to murder them to get their small food surplus or take their people as slaves. Since they are so fucking deep in the mountains, so far away from the main roads and have so little it is not worth to send the army, because it costs more to pay the soldier's salary for the mission that what you are going to get out of it. Thus, they are left alone.

> Why are you assuming a nation wouldn't invade another nation based on simple conquest or for ideological reasons?
I'm not assuming that. I'm saying this could only work over time in small isolated comunities like what I just described. As soon as anarchist had factories, mines or anything WORTH THE TROUBLE getting they'd be invaded and defeated.

I want to rule over others though

Ok, I understand you're point now. You're basically referring to the communitarian tradition that existed and to a small degree still exists in rural Spain. I'm very familiar with this tradition, however, it has always existed within the framework of a nation state.
>People form those isolated communities will defend to death what little they have.
When the Ottoman corsairs raided small coastal villages, they did so for slaves. The people were helpless against these raids that lasted hundreds of years and required the navies of nation states to suppress.

>why does this sound like a bad idea to you?
when you remove the state then motherfuckers start killing each other.
anarchism is an utopia.

>consensual order
>voluntary cooperation
>mutual aid
>maximization of individual liberty
Rules are expectations set for a group that they fulfill in cooperation with each other. Someone is going to initiate the rule set and the group will either follow the suggestion or not; the initiator of any "rule", any "idea", is automatically the "ruler". All anarchy does is to remove written rule that can be anticipated by the group and is universally applied and replace it with the random demands of the greedy and megalomaniacs. Anyone who disagrees with the "idea makers" is not "cooperating", not "consenting", not "aiding" and not "maximizing individual liberty" and thereby not a "true" anarchist; and when you are not an anarchist, then you are an enemy that needs to be destroyed.

Written law will simply be replaced with unwritten law, which always ends up in the hands of the least scrupulous pack leaders that can suppress dissent via their army of goons. It invites chaos, destruction and misery and after the total collapse of society the survivors will default back to the most basic form of human society: Tribalism. And from the ashes of civilization mankind will slowly progress back up towards the huge nation states we have today, having wasted so much time and life on a failed social experiment born from the heads of drug addicted 20-somethings, with no idea of how the world works but plenty of opinions about how terrible the father figure of the state is for denying them their self destructive hedonism.

International relations are literally defined by anarchism.
Please educate yourself in realism.

Thats nut n fancy youtuber larping as a German

>Memeflag
You obviously spent too much time fawning over e-celebs that you can not only name them but think they are behind every post.