You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: URGENT: The European Union is Weeks Away From Passing a Rule That Would Destroy The Best Things About The Internet!
I did not write and did not mean to make government irrelevant.
It is impossible and will lead to results that are further from your ideals than the current state.
Here are elaborations about it:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@stimialiti/anarchy-s-fate-is-to-succumb-to-coercion
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@stimialiti/an-example-of-anarchy
I referred explicitly to the law which your thread is about.
Anarchy is a state of non rulers. Coercion and warlords are a form of ruling others - therefore anarchy ends where warlords and coercion begin.
And it brings its own end similar to how leaving a piece of meat to rot.
A return to anarchy is a huge setback, back to the bronze age, or something in its vicinity.
Did you bother to read my threads about it which I linked you to?
I read some of them, yes - however, we are using entirely different definitions for the practical application of anarchy. Bronze age, as I understand it, was not anarchy. I am not aware of any examples of large scale anarchy, since that would mean no violence and no overpowering of others and our historians claim no such examples as far as I am aware.
I linked you to 2 specific threads
I am still not aware of it.
I guess it is because took more than anarchy even to get to there.
Because anarchy is unsustainable and leads to more violence and worse tyrannical regimes.
As already stated, Anarchy cannot sustain violence, since violence itself requires a 'ruler' and that is, by definition, the opposite of anarchy. That is part of how we are using different definitions for anarchy.
I think you are missing that the moment anyone overpowers anyone else, they are 'ruling' them - albeit perhaps without actual written rules.
Anarchy leads to violence, and to its own demise.
Anarchy is an unstable state.
Unstable states tend to collapse to stable states.
And under anarchy it is easier than under a uniform rule which monopolizes the use of violence.
Anarchy literally cannot possibly lead to violence - it is the polar opposite of violence. What you are saying here is logically equivalent to saying that peace leads to violence.
You are saying that without rulers we have violence, yet it is 'the states' of the world and their rulers that have been responsible for more death than just about anything else.
Setting aside that you are using a false understanding of anarchy.. What examples of anarchy are you referring to here? You are speaking as if you have lived through anarchy or can point to examples of it. Which examples are you referring to?
What will prevent people from settling their disputes the prison way under anarchy?
What will prevent gangs from becoming the new rule under anarchy?
I know, the moment these things happen, the anarchy ends, according to
you.
So for the first and last 25 minutes of its existence, anarchy will be peaceful.
Then it will end, and it will not contradict any of your claims, according to you, since, according to you, it will no longer be anarchy.
One example I linked you to in my first comment and then asked you if you bothered to read in my reply to your reply.
You got a 83.33% upvote from @voteme courtesy of @stimialiti! For next round, send minimum 0.01 SBD to bid for upvote.
Do you know, you can also earn daily passive income simply by delegating your Steem Power to voteme by clicking following links: 10SP, 25SP, 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
You got a 33.33% upvote from @luckyvotes courtesy of @stimialiti!
You got a 50.00% upvote from @luckyvotes courtesy of @stimialiti!