Today, the police wasn't a faggot

With sufficiently overwhelming force violence isn't actually necessary. If you get in a fight with a baby, you don't need to tazer it or beat it with a night stick. Of course the police as they exist now couldn't be trusted with overwhelming force because they are neither intelligent nor benevolent enough to use it well.

Artificial super-intelligence. Of course it's not a drop-in replacement right now, but I'd be happy to give the true anarchists a chance for a few decades.

Anarchy does equal chaos in all but the most homogeneous and like minded of societies. Furthermore, anarchy inevitably leads to a recreation of order as people enjoy having food and doctors. If you allow society to turn into anarchy, you are doing nothing but killing it and re-creating it from the ground up. A society will always form based on the rules of conduct established between people for their mutual benefit.

So unprovoked violence against the weak is cool now?

Anarchy is order.

Anarchism doesn't preclude having food or doctors. It's really about abolishing hierarchical power structures.

I agree that power vacuums are inherently unstable, so the real solution is to have an anarchist dictator who possesses overwhelming force but only uses it to prevent the formation of hierarchies.

Did you post the wrong video or what? Am I missing something?

Nah, the only problem is authoritarianism in it. Otherwise there's not a problem with said violence.

I'm perfectly okay with brutal repression so long as it's democratically decided on by the people who live under it.

Except the people who are subject to the brutal repression are clearly not the ones voting for it. Two wolves and a sheep do not make a democracy.

Fuck off, nationalist

Lurk moar, newfag. Lemme get you started;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Not at all surprising. kys faggot

That is literally a democracy. It just means that things don't necessarily have to be going to be happy peachy in a democracy.

Of course, the alternative is invariably one wolf deciding where two sheep go. That's the thing that is always left out.

That being said, it's probably a good idea to implement a constitutional system that outlines what's beyond the reach of general lawmaking.

In what world? Are we talking about a book you're writing where everything is perfect and people live forever? What you're describing is a civilization with a god for a king.

Man I can't type for shit today. Also the flags popping off is annoying.

Then how is democracy supposed to work? Why is mild oppression acceptable, but not brutal one? Where is the limit?

It doesn't. Humans are unfit to make important decisions. It's a flawed system which produces bad results and we should abandon it as soon as we find something better.

Neither is acceptable.

You prove my point twice. Anarchy never lasts.
You want anarchy, and you want 'diversity', what you really want is pretend time in real life. What you will get if you mix these is chaos.

silverdoctors.com/gold/gold-news/one-year-in-hellsurviving-a-full-shtf-collapse-in-bosnia/

Here is your anarchist society.

Then there is no way to make decisions until we have complete AI control.

Meanwhile, you beg to be put in a forced labor camp. Fuck off.

Remember to report nazbols for Holla Forums subversion

Unless you're a pacifist who advocates for reform your revolution is going to be authoritarian.

So you have nothing to say? You should read the article and get a big taste of human nature. Living in a bubble has probably made you forget what anarchy really is like. You can have big government on your throat metaphorically with his oppressive 3% tax, or Big "Bonelord' Bubba on your throat literally with his oppressive shotgun in your face raping your wife and taking your last sack of beans.

...

Lol

I know full well about the bosnian wars. And your "human nature" is full bullshit. Trying to claim that anarchism is pure lawlessness is bullshit propaganda that says that just because there's no king that there are no rules. I'm all for having police.

Because 3rd parties invaded, that's not Anarchism's fault. Read some history you dumbass.
Bosnia is a failed state, not an Anarchy. Read.
Other guy was right, fuck off, nationalist. Your shit board is over there >>>Holla Forums

Humans are byproducts of their material conditions. Read marx.

Explain how ancoms aren't anarchists.

The cunt is literally advocating for democratic oppression

I didn't say I support that because I don't.

user 3rd parties will ALWAYS invade 'anarchist societies' because they're fucking weak. You could even say that anarchy is a myth because one human will always have power over another, and therefore anarchist societies cannot exist except in the condition that it only exists in solitary, in which care it isnt a society.

Can you not be retarded?

Lol

People who wrote that aren;t economists
No they're not, invaders suffered great casualties on their end and lost a lot of support for the shit they pulled.
Wrong.

I'm flabbergasted I tells ya.

I argue that people who live in societies should be given the right to determine the rules of said society.

If people living in a society agree that they need strictly enforced rules to deal with a particular problem one way or the other, how can I claim that they shouldn't be able to run their own system? Hopefully they'd prefer to have a libertarian society, and I think that setting up systems to determine greed-upon rights of individuals to afford them important basic protections is probably a great idea, but ruling out use of force axiomatically despite how instrumental it is is a pipedream.

You got meme'd on

Nice state

Just because I live next to you you dont get to impose your will on me

If people agree they need to enforce a law, then they themselves should enforce it, not form hierarchical structires to be imposed on individuals

The Soviets were invaded by 14 foreign powers during the middle of a civil war. You can't keep pushing the blame off on everyone else.

Explain the hierarchy.

Is-ought problem
Just because the majority has an opinion, doesnt mean we are ought to follow it

A world superpower 10x the size of an anarchist society lasted so why couldn't they?

That being said, UFK still managed to beat back the soviets, nazis, and franco for most of their existence

The USSR was not a world power during the civil war.

That doesn't relate to what I said, that's just a consequence of democracy.

Alright.

Make law enforcement a job where it isn't filled with idiots who at bare minimum only have to have a GED to follow complete and total orders, and perhaps, engage in brutality usually to indimidate the population.

Set a standard for the bar of entry that is

hm

Literally above

"Hello, here is your badge, High School Freshman Dropout #4532, have a nice day."

Because when you do that you happen to get the shittiest fucking police force imaginable, shittiest fucking detective force imaginable, shittiest everything imaginable; let alone, it's in the States.

If you don't understand the alternative, IE

the police force must be restricted to higher education, and higher education alone like every other high responsibility career that involves people's lives

You're not qualified to talk on the subject of the fucking police

Who gets to program the All-Seeing AI overlord that dictates our every action then?

Really makes you think…

They still had vastly higher numbers and resources

user…

It does, there is dictatorship in democracy

More accurately, there is nothing wrong with setting up systems to come to terms with the fact that it is not possible for everyone to be an expert on everything, and things such as liquid democracy can be used to handle many of the difficulties of keeping voting from over-encumbering itself.

However, the reality is is that until we're able to all live in our own pocket dimensions where we get to pick everything we want to be, we're going to have to compromise with one another.

That's okay, I just want my say in it.

I never suggested the police force isn't less evil because of higher education.

I suggested it more responsible.

University is not say, fucking high school. The rigor, budgeting, everything is intense, it breaks one down and molds them into the parts that need be, with increasing breaking down the higher the responsibility of the job.

It's like suggesting that someone with a medical license is just as responsible as someone say, without a medical license.

Sure you can say that, but come back to me when you want your brain operated by someone who calls themselves a garage brain surgeon.

...

You're making a false dichotomy by saying everyone having a say in the matter is also the creation of the state, as you're creating the identity of a stereotype victim of democracy that has no say against the state.

What is argued is neither. And what is latter in actual Democracy is impossible.

Unrelated; Are you an actual anarcha-feminist? Or do you just use the anfem flag because there's nothing better to represent you?

My only problem with hierarchy is that it creates one-way relationships.

All relationships require some level of compromise. Not even a relationship as simple as two people in a friendship can work without some level of compromise. The only thing I'm solving is the fact that when you create a legal state entity that is capable of both writing laws and enforcing it upon the populace, the people have no say in this relationship.

If you want to live totally free of other people's will, I suggest you live where there are no other people.

I am an anarchist who is a feminist, but not an anarcha-feminist. I have never met one of those, I probably never will.

I took off the flag anyways for the reasons it was obnoxious.

The problem is that the kind of people you have in mind aren't interested in joining the police force full stop. Over the last centuries the police forces of most Western nations have been putting an increasing emphasis on professionalisation and improving standards/conduct. But at the end of the day it attracts "the wrong sort of people" simply because "the right sort of people" aren't interested in being a beat cop

I assume you were that other person, "Asian Trip Cunt"; or are you someone entirely else?

I am the same

What do you mean? How is someone, again, with a medical liscence, not responsible full stop to coming on duty everyday?

That doesn't make sense.

Far below bare minimum.

You either accept unreasnoble restrictions for the job, or you don't have the job.

I think this is one career where that line of logic is fair. After all, lives are at stake, the rigor is responsible. It must be heavy in responsibility and everything must be learned repeated, again and again.

Anyone who has any ideological bias coming out of a university not towards the material should not be allowed to be in high stress high responsibility action oriented careers that require second by second precision.

This should be of surgeons the same way it should be of the police.

Then why do US police forces put Autism Level tests to prevent people with a high enough Autism Level from joining?

kek. Wordfilters.

The police in the US put I. Q. tests on joining to keep anyone with too-high I. Q. out, and the judicial system reaffirmed the legitimacy of doing this.

Oh, I almost forgot.

youtube.com/watch?v=4Zt7bl5Z_oA

Cops in the US are being more and more trained to shoot at the slightest provocation if they can get away with it.

I.Q. is filtered because Holla Forumstards keep making shitty threads like "muh graph proves niggers have a lower intelligence than us whites this proves we're superior MUH RA.CE WAR NAO!!11"

Yeah, I know. I been here a long time. I just forgot that one.

As Charles Murray pointed out in one of his books (I forget which), fifty years ago intelligence quotient scores were roughly aligned with freshmen test scores at Ivy League colleges. His reasoning for the decline in standards of the police force (see )
from that point onwards was that the expansion of the professions, and college attendance in general, had pretty much reduced the pool of bright young men available to the force. Who wants to be a cop and deal with criminals if they can just get a more lucrative professional/managerial position in the private sector?

I agree that the police need to be held to a much higher standard, but it's attracting the talent that's the main problem. How do you convince your average college freshman who views the police force as mostly comprised of violent, racist, power-tripping thugs that couldn't hack it in the private sector to join that same police force?

Obviously, you can't.

A total and complete reformation of the police as we know it that's hard and strict would come first.

And obviously, in the way things are at, that's not happening.

And the state doesn't want it happening.

That is indeed the problem.

The police in the US has way too much power. The police in my country has far too less. They can still use their weapon, but they're going to have a very tough time afterwards and really justify it. Lots of police officers have ended up in jail, expelled from the force or had to resumed duty without their weapons due to situations in which the high ranks thought the use of weapon was unecessary.

But i really agree with the asian anfem. Being a police officer is not just having good phisical skills. The standards must be really high on other fields.
As an anarchist i believe in the extinction of the army, but not the police.

There is no higher standard needed in policing, it's easy as shit. Fuck cops btw.

Why cant all anarchists be cuties like that pic ;🍀🍀🍀. Mayb i'd be an anarchist.

Context?

Why should I be rooting for the police in that instance?

...

Cause it's current year, and anarkids are a bunch of bourgie kids that just want to break stuff, cause daddy doesn't love them.

Kill all cops

We really need an Anarcho-Individualist flag for that sweet Anarchist Infighting. (also to slowly convert /liberty/ and other right leaning Libertarians into /lefty/ Econ and Ethics)