If I don’t study conservapedia, it’s not because I don’t have a curious mind or want to be informed. How is this any different.
BTW, I went and looked up “Law” on your wiki, and fuck if it didn’t confirm that I had it exactly right. The only substance on the page makes it clear that laws and Anarchism are not compatible. The rest is a bunch of hand waving nonsense about community standards.
BTW: The Wikipedia entry on “Anarchist Law” makes a hell of a better case for it. You should have sent me there.
The prehistoric… Prehistoric, like “before history”? Like, before anyone would have written things down. That’s pretty convenient. Call me skeptical that they had no hierarchies or violence. Especially given that primitive primates today have hierarchies and are known to have “wars” between neighboring groups,
How did they deal with drunk assholes driving 70 miles an hour past a playground?
Human brains evolved to operate in small societies and, barring extreme circumstances, we do real well in a world where 99% of the population dies within 10 miles of their birthplace. It’s when social networks grow beyond 150 or so people that things really start to break down. That’s not an issue for ancient societies, but that’s toothpaste out of the tube. We aren’t going back to that unless the human population falls to a tiny fraction of what it is now.
I share a dislike of hierarchy and think that we could have a whole lot less of it than we do now. If an anarchist society would actually function in the modern world, it would be a lot closer to my vision of a just society than our current world is. I think anarchist philosophy makes arguments worth making, but actual mass implementation is ridiculous. Frankly, I see it as a way for edgy Internet philosophers to excuse them from actual political activism on fronts that might actually do some good.
The fact that you can’t make a single point in your own words without linking me to what amounts to propaganda is pretty telling. Nothing I’ve seen in that wiki has been intellectually honest or even interesting. I have no interest in continuing this kind of conversation.
If I don’t study conservapedia, it’s not because I don’t have a curious mind or want to be informed. How is this any different.
BTW, I went and looked up “Law” on your wiki, and fuck if it didn’t confirm that I had it exactly right. The only substance on the page makes it clear that laws and Anarchism are not compatible. The rest is a bunch of hand waving nonsense about community standards.
BTW: The Wikipedia entry on “Anarchist Law” makes a hell of a better case for it. You should have sent me there.
The prehistoric southern levenant was peaceful for over 10,000 years despite not having any laws or police.
Source
Just gonna drop this info here. 👆
The prehistoric… Prehistoric, like “before history”? Like, before anyone would have written things down. That’s pretty convenient. Call me skeptical that they had no hierarchies or violence. Especially given that primitive primates today have hierarchies and are known to have “wars” between neighboring groups,
How did they deal with drunk assholes driving 70 miles an hour past a playground?
Look, I know anarchism sounds like a childish fantasy. Thats what I tought too until I read theory.
And when you get a little older you will read more things (one might hope) and you’ll think even more differently.
I could give you more examples.
The Indus Valley civilisation was a large scale egalitarian civilisation with a estimated peak population of 4-5 million people.
The Cucuteni-trypillia civilisation Started out as a peaceful egalitarian civilisation.
Cayonu started out as a hierarchical civilisation but became egalitarian after the lower class overthrew its rulers.
The Paris commune
The zapatistas
Other
None of this addresses my point at all.
Human brains evolved to operate in small societies and, barring extreme circumstances, we do real well in a world where 99% of the population dies within 10 miles of their birthplace. It’s when social networks grow beyond 150 or so people that things really start to break down. That’s not an issue for ancient societies, but that’s toothpaste out of the tube. We aren’t going back to that unless the human population falls to a tiny fraction of what it is now.
I share a dislike of hierarchy and think that we could have a whole lot less of it than we do now. If an anarchist society would actually function in the modern world, it would be a lot closer to my vision of a just society than our current world is. I think anarchist philosophy makes arguments worth making, but actual mass implementation is ridiculous. Frankly, I see it as a way for edgy Internet philosophers to excuse them from actual political activism on fronts that might actually do some good.
Theres also a article addressing that
https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
The fact that you can’t make a single point in your own words without linking me to what amounts to propaganda is pretty telling. Nothing I’ve seen in that wiki has been intellectually honest or even interesting. I have no interest in continuing this kind of conversation.
Okay, thats fine I suppose. Have a nice day.