What do you mean by this? You abolish the state but want to keep a society in place that is not a state but functions exactly like a state with laws and a hierarchy of of skill, merit, expertise, experience, intelligence ( I assume you still acknowledge these exist) etc and members of this society with the best ability would naturally be in charge of said society making it meritocratic as opposed to capitalism where the elites rule through nepotism and cronyism and inherited private property.
So you can't abolish the state you need a hierarchy to run shit and enforce laws I'd like to see you try running complex systems without a hierarchy or a chain of command try running a nuclear power plant without a hierarchy and see what happens.
When people say they want to abolish the state, they mean central government. It's literally impossible to abolish a state, unless you kill everybody within said state.
Nathan Bailey
what's wrong with a central government in principle if it's based on a meritocracy
Michael Fisher
Ever hear of democracy? Hierarchy implies one or a few persons making all the decisions. With a democracy everyone interested gets a say in what happens. If people decide they trust someone enough to be in charge of nuclear energy it'll be voted in. Likewise if nobody trusts anyone enough for nuclear energy it'll be illegal.
Juan Gomez
Who decides the merit system?
Austin Turner
is still a system of government where power is delegated to the most qualified members and officials drawn from a pool of candidates
Nolan Russell
I dunno if you abolish capitalism and set up some sort of system of online voting where you can check the candidates resume or someshit whoever gets the most votes wins still a hierarchy based on either ability or popularity/speaking skills still need a chain of command to manage the system
Bentley Myers
You can still have hierarchical structures and a highly organized society without a state. The point is that no one institution should have a monopoly on the use of violence. Instead, there should be a variety of institutions which each fill a specific need in society. It is fine if they are hierarchically structured and have their own rules. Individuals, and local groups of individuals should be armed and should defend the institutions that matter to them.
it acumulates power and people in the central government don't get in touch with reality in all of the country. which is why i think city-states like in Ancient Greece if far better.
Kayden Cox
look at the current system though. What we currently have in government in no way represents the populace. Most are rich as fuck, more men then women, more white than minority (disproportionately so).
This isn't really represenation, and becomes more of a problem when politicians run on certain promises (like DRAIN THE SWAMP and LOCK HER UP) and yet they totally drop that once in office. The whole idea of demolishing the state doesn't inherently get rid of all human organization, the goal is simply to make it as horizontal and democratic as possible.
Cooper Reed
Too dumb to read But desires to breed As this troll thread proceeds It's his ego you feed
Brody Green
Abolishing the state doesn't just mean abolishing some institution that's commonly called the state, it means abolishing all institutions and organizations that function through coercion. and usually hierarchy. This does not mean an absence of order or a free-for-all where everyone does whatever they feel like. People will organize into voluntary organizations. These institutions might possibly have a pseudo-hierarchy, where there will be people seemingly telling others what to do, but unlike real hierarchies which exist for the benefit at the top, this style of organization will be for the benefit of all: the managers and coordinators will have a completely different rule than current bosses and rulers, instead they'll be more akin to experts who direct you for your own benefit and who you voluntarily obey, like how companies do now when they hire outside experts to council them on how to properly do something.
Absolutely untrue. Literally no anarchist means that when they say abolish the state.
There being a monopoly on violence isn't the problem, coercion is.
Justin Young
The anarchist understanding of state is utter shit TBH. As long as there are classes, political power exists. Class rule is state, not the spooky gubmint.
Josiah Foster
Anarchists seek to abolish all clases and heirarchies just so you know…
