Asklemmy

43939 readers

516 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

280

ELI5 why is anarchy not "the guy with the bigger stick" making the rules? (lemmy.giftedmc.com)

submitted 10 months ago by haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

204 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).

Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It is, a lot of people just have pseudo mystical beliefs about how people will act when there is no state. They like to imagine everything bad about humans is capitalism/the state/insert Boogeyman, not that the state and laws exist because we tried the alternative and no system at all always does work out to might makes right. A warlord always moves in to fill the power vacuum.

Some people are bastards and any system you create has to be created with the explicit assumptions that people are bastards. Some people just want to believe no one is a bastard or that there are not enough bastards to hurt the reasonable people. I think those people are wildly optimistic, and removing power structures does not remove the temptation to exert power or the ability, only one specific means.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I agree in principle. Yet I think there is no one alternative but a lot and I dont think we have really tried them, especially not given the technological advances we are making. While not sold on anything yet, I'm definitely not a fan of the status quo.

I'm also not saying capitalism is inherently bad but the current state of it is so severely corrupt that nobody should defend it imo.

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. Capital, states, etc all have issues in the same way. I just think the state can work for the people and I'm not convinced of the alternative. Both libertarians and anarchosyndicalists have some wild basically religious ideas about how everyone will basically just work together and not dick each other over because of... Social norms, I guess? I just have a hard time believing it.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 10 months ago

I seem to get mostly the same answers for why other forms of government dont work: some people are dicks.

In our current form we have the same issue.

Do you see how the problem are not the form of government but the sort of „dickish“ people.

We dont teach our kids about the dark triad in school afaik and its not illegal to treat someone like shit as long as you dont break laws. That way we peoduce traumatized people who might become abusers themselves.

Maybe we should revise if our „clear cut“ laws are the right thing. Maybe we should abstract from the basal „you shall not steal“ and other basic rules on a case by case basis. With the power of technology, that sounds achievable.