You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What will the world look like without rich people?
You quite ignored my questions.
You replied but did not answer.
Anarchy is not a stable state and leads to worse tyrannies than the ones which it supposed to replace.
In anarchy there is no higher force to oppose rule by force, and this allows the rise of more primitive forms of rule by force.
There can only be rule by force.
You have to choose a devil.
Harsh but true.
Ask yourself, did your utopia ever exist?
Then give me an example, or explain why it never happened, or existed, but only shortly.
I know why it is unsustainable, and I already posted you a video which answers this, if I remember correctly.
You got upvoted from @adriatik bot! Thank you to you for using our service. We really hope this will hope to promote your quality content!
You got a 17.68% upvote from @sleeplesswhale courtesy of @stimialiti!
False, this is a lie perpetuated by those that rule by force.
Anarchy is the mother of order.
This is why we circle the (A).
False, every adult, and child, knowingly rejects rule by force as a means of obtaining one's goals.
Those that try to rule by force are put down.
An attack on one is an attack on all.
More #fakeducation by those that control your sources of information.
I can link you to books from more than 100 years ago that lay this out quite clearly, but you would have to read them.
Again, that is false.
It is a lie perpetuated by those that benefit under rule by force.
Not many people benefit from wars, most just want to raise their children in peace, but those that profit from war wont let them.
They fill their heads with lies generationally because it keeps them in power.
You are a victim of that, as are we all.
Because the crapitalusts bomb them back into submission.
https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/
No, you are brainwashed by Russian destabilization propaganda disguised as anarchism.
A hostile state welcomes anarchy as long as it is turned against its enemy.
None of the examples you provided lasted, because they were overcame by rule by force governments.
Anarchy could never last anywhere for long, ever.
I already encouraged you to try to learn what a stable state is.
In this combination of words, state does not refer to a political structure, but is a synonym of the word condition.
A local energetic minimum is called a stable state, if I remember correctly.
Any divergence from it will either revert back to it, or to another stable state.
This is a fine example of how basic mathematics and physics help in comprehension of situations that may seem to be outside of the strict realm of natural sciences.
You got a 10.00% upvote from @ubot courtesy of @stimialiti! Send 0.05 Steem or SBD to @ubot for an upvote with link of post in memo.
Every post gets Resteemed (follow us to get your post more exposure)!
98% of earnings paid daily to delegators! Go to www.ubot.ws for details.
Hmm, most of the authors are russians.
Nah, Proudhon was french, and he started the ball rolling.
Sounds reasonable.
It will have to be capable of fighting off the bullies that would take over.
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.
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.
You got a 45.60% upvote from @proffit courtesy of @stimialiti!
Send at least 0.01 SBD/STEEM to get upvote , Send 1 SBD/STEEM to get upvote + resteem