• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, I think an anarchist society won’t work on a large scale because mentally ill people commit murders and you will have to have a power structure to deal with them. And then suddenly you have classes of people with different levels of power.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I never said it did. I’m talking about power structures and hierarchies. You keep putting words in my mouth.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          not having any enforcement of the law is effectively lawlessness. idk how that’s putting words in your mouth.

          you either think anarchy is lawlessness or accept that am anarchist society would still have a way to enforce laws.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            You go ahead and have the conversation with the straw man version of me you’ve set up on your own because you’re not talking to me or about what I’m saying. Enjoy.

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              you know you can correct me instead of just denying my interpretation.

              1. do you think there would be laws in an anarchist society
              2. do you think the laws would be enforced in any way

              is the answer is yes to both then there can be certain authorities on certain issues in an anarchist society. if the answer is no to either of those questions you either think it’s lawless (no for Q1) or effectively lawless (no for Q2). tell me which part of this is a strawman.

              • NoMadMan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                In an enlightened society, each man or woman would govern himself or herself.

                • pyre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  yeah but there’s no such society. checks and balances must be external or they don’t exist.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’ve corrected you more than once and you keep putting words in my mouth and trying to talk about something I wasn’t talking about. I’m not interested. And I’m done.

    • NoMadMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And from what I’ve seen in my lifetime and in the history of the world it’s almost unavoidable.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Anarchism is unavoidable? Where are you seeing that? Because I’m seeing the world spinning into an ultracapitalist death-spiral which will end with the deaths of billions of people.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I literally feel like I’m dealing with a grade school child at this point. It’s almost as if you will do anything to continue to be contentious.

            And this was the personal attack that ended the discussion. Goodbye.