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.

@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

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.

@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.
I agree. Anarchy might work in a little cult community, or to replace an HOA in a gated community ... but even then you're talking about a lot of people with resources and vested interest.

The computers (or phones) we're typing on right now, and the networking infrastructure that makes global community possible, does requite a State (multiple states). You cannot have technology at the scale we have without institution some type of governance. You can't have interoperability without standards. Something as simple as the postal system, or as complex as Interstates/Autobahns, still requires a functioning State to work.

Anarchy doesn't scale.
Matt Hamilton

@djsumdog @amerika @dcc oh yeah?

Who owns the lines, routers, and all the gear that the packets from this message are going to traverse?

The US Federal Government own all that? lol.

It's owned by businesses that have mutual operating agreements with one another (peering).

Suggesting that the State is required for the Internet to function is hilarious because it isn't even involved today as we speak, except to interfere and fuck shit up.

Ultimately all those signals go over telephone poles or in underground cable. May I remind you that at one time, every competing railroad ran their own track. This became unsustainable when you had eight parallel rail lines, of different gauges, that didn't intersect.

Like rail track, many countries standardized telecommunication wires, poles, etc. They may have still been owned by Bellsouth, ATT, Telefonica, whoever .. but regulations meant everyone had to play by the same rules; allowing competition to buy virtual dedicated circuits on public utility infrastructure.