you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YJaewedwqewq 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The argument that TRAs are somehow actually secretly nazis/conservatives is some "democrats are da REAL raycists!!!" tier retardation.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If I'll be honest with you, with everyone pointing fingers at everyone for being fascists and Nazis, it does tend to lead to escalation which can lead to more restrictive authoritarian rule.

If you believe the other guy is out to kill you that justifies premptively restricting their rights to protect yourself in most people's minds, and of course that tends to lead to retaliation.

The issue is authoritarians, doesn't really matter what flavor of authoritarian that they are. TRA's and Catholic priests both do the diddle.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well, that's the whole point. If you take over both the left and the right, then you leave everyone who isn't one with no choice but to choose someone of your group- and by the time that people figure out that you won either way they're dying in a ditch due to war with the people on the other side of the coin.

The world didn't realize it's not "right wing vs. left wing", but "authoritarianism vs. anarchy".

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Those choices are also not really what you've got. Your choices are either authoritarianism with a right wing flavor or authoritarianism with a left wing flavor.

Anarchy isn't a stable form of government and won't work to combat authoritarians, the counter to authoritarianism is more in line with decentralized federalism.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well, when I say anarchy as the opposite, I mean it as 'if there's a certain thing where a law should be, authoritarianism defers to 'no, you CANNOT do this and we will stop you by any means necessary from doing it (or opposite, we believe you MUST do this and we will FORCE you to do this at gunpoint if necessary', while anarchy would be 'sure, if you want to do it, knock yourself out. We don't really care if you choose to do it or not.'

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"while anarchy would be 'sure, if you want to do it, knock yourself out. We don't really care if you choose to do it or not"

So you don't really care if I want to use authoritarian force to subdue you to my will as an anarchist?

This is why it falls apart. The more libertarian esque mentality of "you do what you want to do yourself and take on the risk yourself" only works for things that don't harm other people or society at large, it is a fairly decent mindset to have for a lot of things, but it simply cannot survive as an ideological governmental force once bad faith actors and simply evil people are considered.

What is the anarchists response to the authoritarian that forces them to submit via deadly force? The only proper response is deadly force in kind, or submission, there are no compromises that can be made.

There is an alternative to authoritarianism but it's not anarchy. It's decentralized federalism. But some degree of authoritarian approach is necessary for social cohesion but it needs to be carefully limited so that those approaches are used only towards specific actions like violent theft, murder, rape, and other anti-social behaviors that break down social order.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Even then, the same point is there. The degree of it is needed for the things that absolutely cannot be tolerated in society or all of social order stops, vs. the things that honestly doesn't really matter and don't need a law for or against it- and any alternative is basically "we don't believe there needs to be a law for or against this because ultimately it doesn't matter if someone chooses to do this or not."

That isn't really a decentralized federalism thing.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

All political orientations lead to authoritarianism at their extremes. Even an anarchist must adopt authoritarian approaches to enforcing anarchy should they wish to actually live in an anarchist society, which is of course a paradox in and of itself.

The problem is there are a great many things where it does matter if someone chooses to do something. In fact one can argue that everything a person chooses to do matters. This then becomes a debate into what is the roll of the individual and what is their duty to society.

I tend to be far more on the "let's let people do what they want want see how it works out for them before we decide if we need to ban it or not" side of the fence, but I'm still on the "we do need to ban certain things" side.

A good example of this is drugs, I can see a highly regulated form of even hard addictive drugs being legalized as not causing harm to society, but as you can see in many places where it isn't enforced, legal or not widespread drug use can be a major civil and safety issue. It also is one of those issues where the urban poor suffer the most both directly and indirectly and it does serve as a major barrier to them being able to better themselves. You can't really access society to the same extent when you need to worry about getting jumped by a meth head.

Now I don't think we are going to benefit society much from going out and mass arresting the meth heads. That's only benefitial if they are all given treatment. Something I doubt the government can manage well.

Do I'm largely in favor with the "decriminalization" argument, but with a major caveat, in that you don't arrest people, but you still confiscate the drugs when you find them.

This is of course best managed at a lower level of government. There's no need to go about policing drug use in areas where there is no drug problem to begin with.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course, though drugs is a good example of "authoritarian no matter what you do" as well.

If you choose the authoritarian aspect, it becomes "drugs are banned completely, you mass arrest even little kids taking Communion for underage drinking, and you don't give them treatment, you give them punishment.

If you take the other approach, you decriminalize drugs...but even then, marijuana's legalization shows the result still has "they're legalized, put in specific dispensaries you can get it at instead of all over the place, and they're taxed to smithereens"...which still has the authoritarian view of "you can only get it certain places and you're going to have to pay through the nose to get it." (By contrast, the true libertarian or the anarchist way would be "complete decriminalization, no minimum age for drinking/smoking/doing drugs, you can get opioids over the counter at CVS and get hard drugs in the candy aisle"...which is not a good thing for obvious reasons.)