noauthority.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Long live NAS!

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.4K
active users

@truthbait in 7 years the only memes on here that make ppl bitch are the jew ones. Right over target!

@IcyGrillz @truthbait

jew memes are edgy but egalitarianism/individualism is killing us all

jew and gentile alike

@amerika @IcyGrillz @truthbait You and I differ in that I think the State itself is the problem, but I agree that State forced diversification produces issues that should be quite apparent to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass.

Do you think the State should actively oppose diversification, or do you think that the State has no right to interfere (or exist at all), therefore allowing people freedom of association?

@eriner @IcyGrillz @truthbait

I oppose the State entirely and support the monarchy instead. We need leaders; anarchy is a pipe dream.

Any sane leader would oppose diversity because it is destructive.

Freedoms are for the population, which is ethno-national in definition.

These are the big things that have to be handled SO THAT individual autonomy ("freedom," "liberty," etc) can exist.

If ye harm none, do as thou wilt otherwise.
Matt Hamilton

@amerika @IcyGrillz @truthbait I'd prefer Monarchy to America's current sham of a Government, at least I wouldn't be psyopped at every waking moment, and you'd know whose head to pike, but I don't accept that any man has non-consensual dominion over another.

I don't oppose voluntary organizations formed on legitimate consent, but fundamentally I see no difference between Monarchy and Kleptocracy, except that Kleptocracy is more "efficient".

@eriner @IcyGrillz @truthbait

"I don't accept that any man has non-consensual dominion over another."

This assumes that all men are equal in reason, which is a mistake in my view.

Voluntarism is just anarchy.

Democracy of course relies on manipulation and is therefore unreliable, which is why it always leads to tyranny.

Voluntarism leads to democracy.

@amerika @IcyGrillz @truthbait

> This assumes that all men are equal in reason

I don't think that's relevant. People have the natural right of freedom of association, regardless of how retarded they may be.

> Voluntarism leads to democracy

I could say the same of Monarchy. Perhaps "representational government" would be more accurate, but you get my point. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The political zeitgeist is always in a state of flux because it's a product of people alive at the time.

@eriner @IcyGrillz @truthbait

"Rights" are only relevant insofar as they turn into good results.

In an ideal society of high eugenics, yes, you can basically trust people, and monarchy does this by avoiding micromanagement.

However voluntarism breaks down with the first bad actor.

@amerika @IcyGrillz @truthbait

> However voluntarism breaks down with the first bad actor.

I don't think that's true, otherwise businesses couldn't exist.

You're not *forced* to work for a company to accomplish mutually beneficial goals, exchanging your time for just compensation.

In any sufficiently large business, there will always be at LEAST one bad actor.

But those businesses still exist. They're simply forced by the State to outsource violence, when required, to the State.

@eriner @IcyGrillz @truthbait

Business is based on overlapping interests.

When they get too big, you have your standard bungling corporation.

The problem there is usually unions or gov't rules holding them back from getting focus on task.
@eriner @IcyGrillz @truthbait

When we look at really big business suicides, like Sears, it is always amazing that things went wrong.

And yet, voluntarism applies. They trusted people instead of removing the bad ones.

@amerika I don't claim people or organizations are infallible, and once again the same argument could be made against Monarchy, which under the same condition would likely produce much more brutal and violent result.

I agree with you that the State's removal of freedom of association (forced diversification) has led to undesirable outcomes.

But I remain unconvinced that Monarchy is superior to abolition of the State.

@eriner @amerika I am sympathetic mostly to freedom but i do see some value in monarchy. Again we all face the problem of people who want to be leader which inevitable lead to government. What this mostly means no system will last as long or last to long in some cases and i don't think there is a solution.
@dcc @eriner

My red pill was the Cro-Mags: "anarchy's a mess."

There are going to be leaders.

Any society without leaders will quickly become slaves to one with leaders.

@amerika @dcc

The existence of Leaders does not demand existence of a State.

Do you reject the notion that corporation owners are leaders?

@eriner @dcc

Leaders are anyone who leads. These can be state, aristocratic, or corporate if you believe something like Moldbug's "patchwork" can work.

@amerika @dcc

How does that comport with what you said, then?

> There are going to be leaders.

> Any society without leaders will quickly become slaves to one with leaders.

The second part is entirely obviated by the first.

@eriner @dcc

The second is why the first is true. One of the reasons, at least.

Anarchy is nice when you have a little island with a few dozen to a few hundred people on it.

Then the ships appear on the horizon.

Or, a famine hits. Or there is a storm coming.

@amerika @dcc

Anarchy does not imply no leadership, is my point which seems to have been lost.

Suggesting that anarchy can't work because we *have* to have a criminal enterprise to enslave people in order to run public works projects from on high is preposterous, demonstrably so (business).

Anarchy != no leaders.

Anarchy != everyone unwilling to pool efforts for necessary works

Consent is literally the only difference.

@eriner @dcc

In other words, a committee.

Which has to debate, slowly.

"Consent" is the fiction of democracy.

You want to repeat that experiment?

@amerika @dcc

If high ground water and persistent flooding is impacting my property and my neighbors property, we all have a vested interest in fixing the problem.

Maybe fixing it is only worth $400 to one neighbor, $800 to another, and $1200 to me. (yes, wouldn't be using dollars but humor me).

Either we can work with the resources we have, can't do it, or need a different solution.

I'd rather work it out with my neighbors than have the State steal from me and never fix it anyway.

@amerika @dcc

Further, consent != democracy.

Democracy means that if I'm in the minority, the majority gets to use violence to compel my behavior, steal my shit, etc.

Anarchy and consent means I can dissent and walk away. I'm not /forced/ to contract with you.

The two exist in direct opposition to one another. Equating the two is illogical.

@eriner @dcc

Carrying on here for permanence:

https://www.corrupt.org/boards/index.php/topic,154.new.html

I lost too much past data to the transient nature of social media to trust the format.
abreactionCro-MagsCro-Mags
@eriner @dcc

False dichotomy here as well as missing the big point.

Having reservoirs and other organized methods of dealing with a flood are imporant, as is planning for a flood when the storm is on the horizon.

Having a leader to direct people toward organized activity leads to efficiencies and also defense of the commons.

@amerika @dcc

> Having a leader to direct people toward organized activity leads to efficiencies and also defense of the commons.

You keep saying stuff about a "leader" with the implication that it HAS to be one of the State.

But I've already addressed the fact that this is NOT a requirement: noauthority.social/@eriner/112

Your only complaint, from what I can tell, is "consent is slow and inconvenient"

Sorry, but that's where you lose me.

@eriner @dcc

No, aristocrats are leaders outside of the State.

If a corporation owns an island, it can have leaders too.

@amerika @dcc

Then I don't understand the fundamental argument.

I thought you were arguing against anarchy and in favor of monarchy because "anarchy's a mess" and "Anarchy is nice when you have a little island with a few dozen to a few hundred people on it.", with the conversation leading one to conclude that the reason for this is due to a lack of leader(ship).

But now we've come full circle and agree that leaders need not be of the State.

So it's not an argument against Anarchy?

@eriner @dcc

Anarchy does not work; voluntarism does not work.

Let us try there.

I dislike the State as well.
@eriner @amerika @dcc Nation states exist in a state of anarchy with respect to each other. Anarchy leads to disputes being resolved with violence/war.
People who don't like disputes spilling into widespread violence outnumber those who don't mind and this majority will band together impose a solution on individuals who would like to retain the right to use violence in their disputes with others.

An entity that monopolizes the use of violence is considered a state and people willing submit to it.
@eriner @dcc

I would identify myself as "culturally liberal, economically libertarian, politically conservative, and ecologically fascist."

The root is realism.

Functional institutions are needed, and ad hoc discussions are a burden just like the taxes imposed by socialism.
@amerika @eriner Key word i said is there is going to be a leader. People who want to control others and the state is just one massive way to do it.
@dcc @eriner

Yep, which is why I support the one non-State option.

"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen."
@amerika @dcc @eriner

What do you mean by the "leader" 🤔
Some kind of symbolic figure to unite and comfort people, or literal dicktator?
@lonelyowl13 @dcc @eriner

Someone to do the work of leading: making decisions and communicating them.

I dislike dictatorships. They are unstable and the succession problem is insurmountable in my view.
@amerika @dcc @eriner

A person responsible for making decisions but not a dicktator 🤔
Do you think about an absolute monarchy or something like that?
@lonelyowl13 @dcc @eriner

Yes, of course. But monarchies are tiered structures.