this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
780 points (97.6% liked)
The Onion
4742 readers
11 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Without rulers, not without rules ;)
They're being a ruler is the joke
Who enforces the rules if they exist? There is a difference between ruler and enforcer. The fact I have to point this out is sad.
Yeah one is a person, the other is a boot of that person
The fact you still do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic. Anarchy is literally beyond your comprehension.
Rules HAVE to exist. In some form. They HAVE to be enforced in some form. If you assume any enforcer is a boot of a "ruler", you are literally missing the entire point.
Still dont? I just got here you dweeb
Yet you're willing to mouth off with ignorance despite, "just getting here". Fucking pathetic. Do better.
Cringe, honestly dude all your comments tell me you're 14. I just joined the thread with one comment and you start hurling insults. Actually child like behavior.
You literally said anarchism is beyond my comprehension despite it being one of the hardest to define political terminologies. YOU don't even know what it means because it means 100 different things to 100 different grouos of people
One day you'll get a 2 in front of your age and feel embarrassed about how fucking idiotic you make yourself look all the time.
No I think you and most anarchists are.
The moment you create rules and create enforcers those enforcers become the rulers.
If they have the power to enforce rules then they have higher authority and therefore status.
Don't get me wrong I love the concept. The problem is the concept completely ignores that humans naturally develop hierarchy. We won't deliberately pick the roles they'll just naturally develop over time.
And theres no way to counterbalance or fix or even mitigateany of this, i know because i just thought about it for almost an entire half of a second!
Obviously theres no way to do maintenance or draw someone back in from shitty behavior other than shooting them. Obviously theres no way to get someone to chill out other than shooting them. There are no human behaviors; ingrained or learned, that could possibly fix any of this or serve as levelling mechanisms.
Unfortunately, we can't stop things that 'happen naturally' and so we shouldn't try, and that's why I'm against the criminalization of murder and rape, and honestly pretty eager to die of cancer.
so therefore we must have massive globe spanning potentially apocalyptic decades long pissing matches and everything must be grinding the weak into dust and delusional assholes totally disconnected from any material concern making the worst possible decisions must make every decision for everyone, even if it literally ends all life by ruining earth.
Enforcers only become rulers when they're given both immunity and the ability to make shit up.
The fact you fundamentally do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic.
If you like the concept, then maybe understand how it's actually supposed to function. Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist. How do you do that fairly? Yes, nature has tendencies, which is why humans create rules and enforcers to resist natural tendencies.
Humans are supposed to be GREATER than "dumb animals", yet all I ever hear is people whining about how it it's unnatural... NO SHIT!! That's the entire point!!
In nature, the strong eat the weak, the end. Game over. We need to create rules and enforcers to make a better environment than is natural. Creating rules requires at least a temporary "ruler" (that doesn't 'have' to be a single person). If you claim ANY ruler is ALWAYS bad, you are quite literally forgetting how not-nature works in its entirety.
Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution
Rules don't have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.
Your conception of "natural tendencies" and "the strong eat the weak" smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.
You're wrong, plain and simple
More than wrong, second order wrong, drawing the wrong bad conclusions from ideas that are themselves nonsense and wrong. So they have to reconsider not only a conclusion, but fundamental ideas. Its a big ask, I'm not sure its worth the interaction.
If you refuse to take power, someone else will.
You are beyond stupid if you cannot fathom how my explanation of nature was to SEPARATE out the good intentions of societal rules ... right? The fact you take an allegory literally is just pathetic communication skills. Try to understand what I'm saying, not what some sub-selection of my words returns you from Google...
Do you have empirical evidence that societal rules are borne of good intentions and not complete fabrications, made up entirely to suit the needs of those in power? Social organization (including rules) are a human concept that are malleable and changeable. Can you prove that enforcement is needed to have a functioning society? You're so confident in your assertions, how about you put up some proof behind it?
Your allegory is used by social darwinists. It's a bad allegory. If it doesn't accurately convey the sentiment you were attempting to express it's your own fault. Write with intent and be precise
How do you keep the enforcers from becoming the rulers? Who enforces the enforcers? Other enforcers? What's to stop them from banding together just like cops do now? Eliminating hierarchy requires many other conditions be met to not just turn into authoritarianism or something similar.
Almost like the world we live in is thoroughly fucked and we need to change a lot to make it not suck, and if it were easy somebody probably would've done it by now?
Yes exactly. That's why anarchy is a little more complicated than, "lol no rulers".
Look at it from an information theory (applied to organization it's called systems theory, cybernetics, or scientific management) perspective: when you put one guy in charge of too much stuff (and let's face it; its usually gonna be a guy, because misogyny ud a feature not a bug of these systems), you have to compress all the data coming to him, and all the orders will be based on increasingly shitty abstracted models as you try to make him in charge of more stuff. Even if that guy is the absolute best, he literally cannot have good information, and the more fine grained his control, basically the more its just a crap shoot.
So yes. Centralized authority is bad, and it can be proven with math. You can try to hedge it, you can try to optimize it, but its got a fundamental flaw, not just from a moral perspective, but a mathematical one. Please don't make me look up the actual numbers; I'm on mobile.
Got any reading suggestions for systems theory for people with little/no academic background? I want to read into it but people usually link college textbooks for advanced classes lol
So you should probably understand at least the idea of information theory, 'the information: a history, a theory, a flood' is a great conceptual explain/primer/pop-sci book on that.
'Seeing like a state' is a little specific, but its specific about this idea.
I'll check that out, thanks. Funny you mention seeing like a state, I just finished it last weekend. I was kind of getting that vibe from it, having watched/listened to stuff about complex systems before. But Ive been intimidated by the nature of most writing on complex systems
It can get pretty dense; any field with con Neumann involved does that.
Theres a podcast called 'general intellect unit' about this stuff. Also has book recommends.
Oh, tight! I'll give 'em a listen. Cheers!
I AM NOT DEFENDING CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY!! Holy fuck, you idiots literally cannot understand the concept that distributed authority is still authority....
Yes, that's the fundamental contradiction of anarchism. Rules need rulers.
Do they? Why?
Anarchism IS NOT about "no rule makers". It is wholly about JUSTIFIED AUTHORITY, not NO authority.
So you're not willing to cite a source? Typical for your types
Can you cite a source that says this that isn't Wikipedia please? Or are you just making it up to fit your own personal beliefs about the subject
Or are you just going to continue to call people stupid without backing anything up, huh?