credit to EL_Radical

  • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “We all”, so it’s not an anarchy? I mean the second you get everyone agreeing on something and acting it out, it’s no longer anarchy. It’s a commune of VERY like minded people that value keeping to them selves, but militarize the second someone threatens their way of life. And unless it’s a hive mind, such a force will naturally find some sort of organizing body or fizzle out. Switzerland is a lot closer to what you’re describing than anarchy.

    • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      anarchy doesn’t forbid collaboration between large groups of people. It just forbids forcing them to collaborate if they don’t want to.

      Anarchy doesn’t work if nobody upholds it (by bashing those trying to establish hierarchy/authority). Just like democracy doesn’t work if people don’t participate.

      • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Sounds like a medieval guild bullying the rich shitty noble trying to have his way with the town. What I’m trying to get at is, that’s it’s a nice idea, but who’s keeping the Billionaire Bashers Club (BBC, lol) in check? Also we essentially just created two factions that would be fighting over power. Unless the BBC starts policing people to prevent them from conspiring in the first place. Doesn’t really matter what angle we approach this by, we’re creating a governing body here.