4 ms·

Well, everyone has a sense of justice. Some people think that murder for "dissing" them or being too rich/white/gay/smart/stupid/etc is just and some think that

Well, everyone has a sense of justice. Some people think that murder for "dissing" them or being too rich/white/gay/smart/stupid/etc is just and some think that smoking evil plants like tobacco is abomination and kills everyone who gets a whiff of smoke. We already have a solution for reconciling individual views on justice that works much better than what anarchists managed to show in their CHAZ/CHOP, for example. This does not answer my question though. Why anarchists are not happy? Why can't they live in their desired society right now?

mindslight 6y ago
Your comment isn't very coherent, and it's hard to assume good faith. Reading any anarchist philosophy will quickly lay out criteria for recognizing versions of justice that can actually be considered reasonable. As for answering your question, that's exactly what my comment attempted but you didn't engage with what I said. You're effectively just arguing against straw men, and have invoked yet another with "their CHAZ/CHOP".
- pandaman 6y ago
  I get you, anarchists have some literature that describes their views on justice, I am fine with it. For all I care they might have some fashion magazines that provide guidelines on the reasonable attire for a sensible anarchist. My question is still not answered by this and I don't see how is this related at all, to be frank. It's almost as if your answer is not quite coherent.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    The reason I referenced anarchist definitions of justice is that you brought up a straw man version of justice that doesn't survive the slightest critique: > Some people think that murder for "dissing" them or being too rich/white/gay/smart/stupid/etc is just The problem with your initial "question" and subsequent replies is that they revolve around a sophomoric understanding that collapses the philosophy into meaninglessness. What I said in my first reply: > What matters is the overall heuristic of trying to shrink the structures to be more local and manageable. Anarchism in all its various flavors isn't a prescription, but rather a rebuke of prescriptivism. You may have a hard time seeing this as the essence of anarchism, as it is a general desire shared among most people. But really, we've got lots of anarchist thought in our political discourse. Blue team: drugs, prisons, nondiscrimination. Red team: guns, taxes, business regulations. But we have very little anarchism in our actual political results, except for maybe ancap for big businesses.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      If you read this thread, I am sure, you will find that you brought justice first. Neither I brought any straw men (is it some new trend on Tweeter because I have seen several people in the past couple months using "straw man" in some strange and unknown to me sense, all I know is a discussion technique of making a different argument for one's opponent and arguing it instead of the actual one. But nothing of this sort could be applicable here since I have not made any arguments, I am just asking a question). So, to prevent any possibility of stramaning, are you now saying that anarchism is disagreement with some laws and not the rejection of the institute of government?
      - mindslight 6y ago
        Every one of your "questions" has included your own caricature of anarchism. At this point I can no longer assume good faith. If you earnestly want to know the answer to your questions, then you need to do the work of understanding.
fault_lines 6y ago
The current geopolitical situation prevents anarchists from living in their desired society because there is zero (or practically zero) free land to create such a society without it existing within a state that is not anarchist. This should be obvious.
- pandaman 6y ago
  That's my question! How is "free" land is different from any other? It's just a convention established by the government i.e. if you try to settle on somebody's land then eventually armed people will show up and make you go. So how is it different from the anarchy? Who will provide the "freedom" of the land and is incapable to do it now?
  - fault_lines 6y ago
    I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to argue, to be honest.
    - kilburn 6y ago
      Not the same poster, but I think his point is: Consider a world where society lived by the anarchist principles. In that hypothetical world, most people self-organized in a large group where: - They decided to democratically appoint representatives that flesh out large-scale agreements and called it law - They decided it is necessary to have people dedicated to securing the lands where they live from both internal and external threats ... and so on and so forth, until they effectively self-organized into the equivalent of our current society. Is there any difference between that world and ours? Why can't an anarchist assume that this is what actually happened (there's some merit to the idea) and be happy to live in an anarchist world, our world?
      - pandaman 6y ago
        This is one explanation. The question I have is more of the "what are you going to do when some people will get together and apply concerted violence to you (not dissimilar to the way the government works right now)?". I have not seen a single attempt to answer this in the few hundred comments. It appears most anarchists do not even realize this possibility even exists.

mindslight 6y ago

Your comment isn't very coherent, and it's hard to assume good faith. Reading any anarchist philosophy will quickly lay out criteria for recognizing versions of justice that can actually be considered reasonable. As for answering your question, that's exactly what my comment attempted but you didn't engage with what I said. You're effectively just arguing against straw men, and have invoked yet another with "their CHAZ/CHOP".

pandaman 6y ago
I get you, anarchists have some literature that describes their views on justice, I am fine with it. For all I care they might have some fashion magazines that provide guidelines on the reasonable attire for a sensible anarchist. My question is still not answered by this and I don't see how is this related at all, to be frank. It's almost as if your answer is not quite coherent.
- mindslight 6y ago
  The reason I referenced anarchist definitions of justice is that you brought up a straw man version of justice that doesn't survive the slightest critique: > Some people think that murder for "dissing" them or being too rich/white/gay/smart/stupid/etc is just The problem with your initial "question" and subsequent replies is that they revolve around a sophomoric understanding that collapses the philosophy into meaninglessness. What I said in my first reply: > What matters is the overall heuristic of trying to shrink the structures to be more local and manageable. Anarchism in all its various flavors isn't a prescription, but rather a rebuke of prescriptivism. You may have a hard time seeing this as the essence of anarchism, as it is a general desire shared among most people. But really, we've got lots of anarchist thought in our political discourse. Blue team: drugs, prisons, nondiscrimination. Red team: guns, taxes, business regulations. But we have very little anarchism in our actual political results, except for maybe ancap for big businesses.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    If you read this thread, I am sure, you will find that you brought justice first. Neither I brought any straw men (is it some new trend on Tweeter because I have seen several people in the past couple months using "straw man" in some strange and unknown to me sense, all I know is a discussion technique of making a different argument for one's opponent and arguing it instead of the actual one. But nothing of this sort could be applicable here since I have not made any arguments, I am just asking a question). So, to prevent any possibility of stramaning, are you now saying that anarchism is disagreement with some laws and not the rejection of the institute of government?
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Every one of your "questions" has included your own caricature of anarchism. At this point I can no longer assume good faith. If you earnestly want to know the answer to your questions, then you need to do the work of understanding.

fault_lines 6y ago

The current geopolitical situation prevents anarchists from living in their desired society because there is zero (or practically zero) free land to create such a society without it existing within a state that is not anarchist. This should be obvious.

pandaman 6y ago
That's my question! How is "free" land is different from any other? It's just a convention established by the government i.e. if you try to settle on somebody's land then eventually armed people will show up and make you go. So how is it different from the anarchy? Who will provide the "freedom" of the land and is incapable to do it now?
- fault_lines 6y ago
  I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to argue, to be honest.
  - kilburn 6y ago
    Not the same poster, but I think his point is: Consider a world where society lived by the anarchist principles. In that hypothetical world, most people self-organized in a large group where: - They decided to democratically appoint representatives that flesh out large-scale agreements and called it law - They decided it is necessary to have people dedicated to securing the lands where they live from both internal and external threats ... and so on and so forth, until they effectively self-organized into the equivalent of our current society. Is there any difference between that world and ours? Why can't an anarchist assume that this is what actually happened (there's some merit to the idea) and be happy to live in an anarchist world, our world?
    - pandaman 6y ago
      This is one explanation. The question I have is more of the "what are you going to do when some people will get together and apply concerted violence to you (not dissimilar to the way the government works right now)?". I have not seen a single attempt to answer this in the few hundred comments. It appears most anarchists do not even realize this possibility even exists.