You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What will the world look like without rich people?
No, you are brainwashed by Russian destabilization propaganda disguised as anarchism.
Hmm, most of the authors are russians.
Nah, Proudhon was french, and he started the ball rolling.
A hostile state welcomes anarchy as long as it is turned against its enemy.
Sounds reasonable.
Anarchy could never last anywhere for long, ever.
It will have to be capable of fighting off the bullies that would take over.
I already encouraged you to try to learn what a stable state is.
What is more stable than cooperation of the whole?
It certainly isnt crapitalism's dod eat dog, nor rule by force's wars.
I meant that nowadays the pushers of the agenda you claim to adhere to are sponsored by enemy agents, namely Russia, mainly.
And it never happened because it never had the resources that a rule by force has.
Anarchy is not a cooperation of the whole.
It falls into rule by force factions, worse than the kind you want to replace.
And they are also more violent in every day terms, than what you want to replace.
You will have to pay protection to a local warlord/gang leader instead of taxes to the government.
If you will try to resist, you will not get the time to miss the government.
I'd of put my money on soros, but whatever, if russia wants to take violence off the table, im good with that.
Yet.
We still havent quit, waned a little, but the spark is still there waiting for its tinder.
You clearly have not read the books.
Your contention would make anarchy no different than what we have now.
And that is no anarchy at all.
Rule by force comes off the table or it is more of the same.
You think Soros sponsors libertarian movements?
It is interesting. Possible, but it is quite obvious that Putin is behind them, even if he has partners.
And it never will for obvious reasons I explained to you already.
Anarchy will allow more violence.
I know I will be more violent if there will be anarchy.
Others too.
I think soros finances destabilization.
For a time folks are more violent, but just until those that think obtaining their goals through violent means are dealt with.
He does, at far smaller, short term and pronounced scales.
It will never end until rule by force government/s restore their law and order.
It may be Mexican style of law and order, but not anarchy.
But mexican style is anarchy, when the folks get tired of being abused they rise up.
When good people get hurt they put a stop to it.
When bad people get hurt, they shrug. Doesnt pay to be bad here.
Dont believe the hype.
They dont call us anarchists down here, they call us good neighbors.
Why do you call it anarchy when a Mexican drug cartel rules your hood, or ghetto, or wherever u live, but want to replace it with anarchy when a North American drug cartel rules your hood?
Like they do in Mexico?
Only the better of the good, and only if they can, so no.
The truth is almost perfectly opposed to your claims in your comparison.
I dont think cartels rule anything outside their own homes, if they do, i havent seen it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_de_Autodefensa_Comunitaria
Now bear in mind, any group that doesnt kiss govt ass will be labeled as terrorists, or out of control.
I think banding together to protect your neighborhood from any thugs, in or out of uniform, is a good thing, and an example of anarchy in action.
They didnt wait for govt to solve the problem, govt is the problem.
The people here know that.
You don't even have to read the books to understand this, just read the word itself: Monarchy means 1 ruler, anarchy means no rulers. It's not complicated.
I know.
I asked him what is the difference between anarchy and communism because he claimed that Anarchy and communism are the same.
He claims that I use corrupted definitions.