Comment on Lawless society
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 days agoJust that they think that using house rules everyone agrees on is a great idea.
Kinda. The most important part is that if someone disagrees with the house rules, they can choose to disassociate from the house and go somewhere else. There’s no state to say “this open field that’s not utilized is mine, bitch!” and then taze you.
emmie@lemmy.world 4 days ago
There’s the state neighbouring anarchists which can’t form a state and so probably they exist within the borders of some state unless some state respects not a state
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 4 days ago
U r assuming that anarchists would be peaceful n just roll over on their backs to show their tummies to Genghis Khan.
The goal of anarchism is freedom. The existence of a State means no freedom. Thus, anarchist militias unite to fight this threat. A stateless society doesn’t equate an unorganised society.
emmie@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Good luck being efficient and quick without central command. There’s a reason anarchism didn’t survive evolutionary process
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 4 days ago
Who said there would be no centralised command? It would just be opt out. If an individual/community wanted to opt out of this, there would be noone forcing them to not do so.
As for evolution of political systems due to natural selection, would you say the same about democracy? Stable democracy that we know about today has existed only for the past 300 years. Women got the right to vote this century. If u r living under a dictatorship, would you use the same argument of natural selection to not fight for a democracy?