@truthbait in 7 years the only memes on here that make ppl bitch are the jew ones. Right over target!
@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?
@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".
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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: https://noauthority.social/@eriner/112355332258753840
Your only complaint, from what I can tell, is "consent is slow and inconvenient"
Sorry, but that's where you lose me.
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?