this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
1196 points (96.1% liked)
Memes
45894 readers
695 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Capitalism is not freedom anyway. There is a reason we anarchists reject capitalism. We know better
Yes, but they’re also mostly nuts.
Or maybe just don't value the same creature comforts you do.
Is there an anarchistic country that you would love to move to?
Lol "anarchistic country" If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You're like asking them to find an incel that isn't a misogynist
Good point. I didn't know the background or history of the word.
Lol I could if I was desperate to be right but I think I used the wrong word to describe what I intended and you can clearly see that. It's so difficult to pin down meaning on culturally developing words just due to how fluid languages can be. I intended for it to be a clear-cut example of things that can't exist but you've clearly shown it isn't so clear cut.
Since this subthread had already stepped into the realm of sidetracked internet debate, I'd like to challenge that claim.
I understand that the reasoning behind this statement is that interstellar travel requires some properties that disqualify the ship from being considered "unarmed":
I see two problems with this argument:
My point about the FTL thing is that this question is in the realm of science fiction. Sci-fi authors can come up with whatever physics they want, and in real life we are so far from being able to do it that we can't tell how it'd look like. So I wouldn't rule out that it'd be based on some physical principles that allow a non-weaponizable spaceships.
Regarding the comparison to cars - I agree that it all depends on definition, but while there is some merit to the philosophy that "there are no wrong definitions" - bad definitions are certainly a thing. And a definition of "weapon" that includes regular cars is a bad one, because it misses out the important distinction between regular cars and armored vehicles with mounted guns.
I agree about that part, but only from a modern human's perspective. We don't have interstellar spaceships (even intrastellar travel is still a huge feat for humanity as a collective) so if such a spaceship from an alien civilization arrives here tomorrow, even if it's a civilian one that was never intended to be a weapon - its operators could still cause us tremendous damage if they decide to use its power against us.
But let's go back to cars. If you take a regular car to a small village of some lost tribe completely detached from civilization (for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the ground is flat enough and solid enough to drive), you could probably use it to destroy the village. Take the same car to a modern city - and while you can still cause damage with it, it wouldn't be as devastating since they know how to deal with cars and have the infrastructures and rules to safely deal with them. Bring a tank, however, and it'd be a different story.
I imagine a type 3 civilization would know how to deal with interstellar vehicles. Bring such a spaceship to one of its outposts - and it won't be considered a weapon. Unless, of course, it happens to be one that's actually designed to be a weapon.
A bow is usually considered a weapon while a car isn't, but the car has much more destructive power than the bow. It's not the destructive power that makes something a weapon.
And a soft piece of sponge is also a weapon when you force it in someone's throat. If you define "weapon" like this, almost anything is a weapon. You lose the distinction between a bow that was designed for killing and a brick which was designed for building.
But more importantly - if everything can be a weapon when used as such, then saying that an interstellar capable spaceship is a weapon says nothing about spaceships themselves or interstellar travel itself.
Anarchy isn't synonymous with anti capitalism
Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.
It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can't exist.
I am not an anarchist and I won't make their case, but there is a difference between what is and what ought to be. What people have done is a statement about what is. Anarchy, like any other idealogy like it, is about what ought to be.
It’s free to be poor is what it is
Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn't pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)
Anarchists are their own brand of stupid.
The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world's treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.
We literally didn't have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.
The human os isn't ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.
Humans have built societies with rules for forever.
And banish people outside their society.
I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.
A light form was tribalism. If you didn't go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.
We now don't have places to banish people to. That's why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that's the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.
It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren't we anymore?
We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.
You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.
But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.
Hardly utopia.
Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.
Yeah, and that is not equivalent to modern borders.
Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today
In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?
Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be "the zone of control of a government" and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.
That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.
The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?
There is a massive difference if you can practically establish who is allowed into and out of a country
So is the argument against technology that allows us to know who is who and records of who is a citizen of places?
Like, they used to record that stuff too… it was just much harder?
They would collect taxes and keep records?
They couldn't effectively police borders, so they didn't. Technology and population density influences the way the state works and whether they could do borders as they existed in the 20th century and exist in the 21st century.
The argument isn't against technology, it is saying borders as they are understood here are a relatively recent technology relying on other technologies
But that’s the way borders were understood then too… it was just harder to determine who was who?
They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?
That is a complete anachronism, unless you actually were an invader. Have you actually researched this or are you just taking your assumptions and trying to apply them to history?
Go read some Greek history on the city states and ostracism, as well as the fact that it only worked because they had slaves and subjugated women?
Exile as punishment for a crime and keeping slaves is distinct from having a border with border controls.
Ostracism only required a vote, no crime, and no defense was allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
The penalty for returning was death.
Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?
Literally whether you can control human migration between territories.
But if you can throw people out, and kill them when they come back why is it that different?
Denying entry to random people is different than telling someone to leave?
Imagine the difference between a bar with a bouncer at the door and a bar without, and then apply that principle at a much larger scale.
Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.
There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.
But it makes it much harder to control who is in a space, which means in practice there are additional liberties.