Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Works well in small settings. Not across an entire population -- that's a utopian myth. There's no way to deal with conflict or scarcity of resources in an anarchic society. Most any clash between "classes" of people (or gender, or ethnicity or races) comes down to someone trying to protect what they've got by excluding others from attaining it. Then the other group pipes up about being held back. That's human nature and anarchy isn't going to fix it.

 

People can debate whether authority should be proactive or not, but there will never be any successful true anarchy.

What does any of that have to do with you erroneously saying that anarchists can't be organized?
Posted

There can be order without coercive authority. Nobody among my friends has any authority over the others, yet somehow we manage to get together and watch football on Sunday and everybody gets sufficiently drunk and full of pizza. The idea is that if they don't like how something is done, they can go off and do it on their own.

 

If you consider the actual definition of the word, disorder is a component of anarchy, so your Sunday football & pizza example doesn't really work. I get what you're trying to say, but snafu's original comment wasn't off base.

Posted

There can be order without coercive authority. Nobody among my friends has any authority over the others, yet somehow we manage to get together and watch football on Sunday and everybody gets sufficiently drunk and full of pizza. The idea is that if they don't like how something is done, they can go off and do it on their own.

 

Individuals voluntarily working to a common good doesn't run counter to anarchy. Individuals being forced to contribute to the common good does.

 

Your example doesn't scale. If one of your friends started being an inveterate !@#$, he'd quickly be ostracized by mutual agreement, enforced simply by everybody not returning his calls.

 

When you're talking about an entire state, ostracizing the inveterate !@#$s doesn't quite work that way. Turns out, you need some sort of mechanism to ostracize them. That ends up requiring some sort of bureaucracy and authority.

 

Short version: you'd have a point, if you were friends with the entire country, you idiot.

Posted (edited)

 

Your example doesn't scale. If one of your friends started being an inveterate !@#$, he'd quickly be ostracized by mutual agreement, enforced simply by everybody not returning his calls.

 

When you're talking about an entire state, ostracizing the inveterate !@#$s doesn't quite work that way. Turns out, you need some sort of mechanism to ostracize them. That ends up requiring some sort of bureaucracy and authority.

 

Short version: you'd have a point, if you were friends with the entire country, you idiot.

Good we're not talking about scaling it to an entire country. The fact that they're organized isn't the irony.

 

The irony is that they're protesting a statist losing the election.

Edited by sodbuster
Posted (edited)

Almost choked when I heard McConnell lecturing the Dems on how they had to work with Trump since he's the rightfully elected president.

 

He's right but what a piece of excrement.

Edited by Benjamin Franklin
Posted

Almost choked when I heard McConnell lecturing the Dems on how they had to work with Trump since he's the rightfully elected president.

 

He's right but what a piece of excrement.

 

Now that's funny.

Posted

Almost choked when I heard McConnell lecturing the Dems on how they had to work with Trump since he's the rightfully elected president.

 

He's right but what a piece of excrement.

 

Sad thing is he's one of the more reasonable pieces of excrement on the Hill.

Posted

Almost choked when I heard McConnell lecturing the Dems on how they had to work with Trump since he's the rightfully elected president.

 

He's right but what a piece of excrement.

Elections have consequences.

Posted

Almost choked when I heard McConnell lecturing the Dems on how they had to work with Trump since he's the rightfully elected president.

 

He's right but what a piece of excrement.

 

 

Yes the 3rd grade Hill rhetoric continues to reign supreme.

Just like in the post I quoted first. Potty mouth! :o

Posted

Yes the 3rd grade Hill rhetoric continues to reign supreme.

 

He's just following the words of President Obama

 

-On Jan. 23, 2009, "the House Republican leadership met with President Obama at the White House," say CBS News Capitol Hill producer Jill Jackson. "And the president told the Republicans elections have consequences, and I won."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/midterm-elections-how-the-dems-lost-the-house/

Posted

Well the Unifier in Chief said this:

Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, Obama said, “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Posted

 

He's just following the words of President Obama

 

-On Jan. 23, 2009, "the House Republican leadership met with President Obama at the White House," say CBS News Capitol Hill producer Jill Jackson. "And the president told the Republicans elections have consequences, and I won."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/midterm-elections-how-the-dems-lost-the-house/

 

Like I said, third grade rhetoric.

×
×
  • Create New...