So I was reading about en.wikipedia.org
WTF? Every individual or group must be able to defend itself? And what if they fail? The criminals keep on conquering? This isn't a solution. This is effectively indistinguishable from rule of the jungle.
Anarchist Law
Jace Brown
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Brayden Nelson
Don't worry too much about it. Anarchism being the utopian petit-bourg "socialism" it is will remain a wet dream for liberals.
Angel Reed
A solution to what you spooked fucker.
Gavin Sanchez
Why is it so hard to imagine that a voluntary militia could carry out the functions of a standing army? Set up in times of war or when defense is necessary. Every person would have a rifle, pistol and the necessary training to use it. Of course some would be trained for other weapons as well, but the heavier arms (tanks, machine guns, AA guns, rocket launchers) would be divided into several weapons depots, so that taking one weapons depot does not mean all the heavy weapons are taken.
I guess if there are military planes then the pilots of civilian aircraft during times of peace could also double as fighter/bomber/helicopter pilots. For those extremely specialised military positions there would have to be training throughout the year to make sure their skills are kept up and that they are ready in case they are needed.
For day-to-day policing however you'd have to have a 'rotating' force. Nobody should be voluntary police longer than say a month because those who are attracted to those kinds of positions are usually the kind of people that shouldn't get those positions. Someone has to do it. The voluntary police would, of course, be under constant scrutiny and it would make sense to adopt a policy of immediate removal from duty following a complaint, with an inquiry done after.
Nobody could be police forever, and in addition to a month of service, you could limit it to no more than 3 months in a year.
Grayson Anderson
What this means, you mong, is that you cannot shift the right to self-defence unto someone else, meaning that you make it illegal to attack someone in self-defence unless you're a part of the police corps.
Honestly, this is the reading comprehension you'd expect from a Holla Forumsyp.
David Parker
A solution to not being murdered in my sleep, you autist.
Gavin King
Bravo
Asher Carter
Build a fence around your house??
Jayden Jenkins
The passage says nothing about police having the EXCLUSIVE right to law enforcement.
Lincoln Lee
...
Bentley Thomas
The defense of a commune/society depends on each member acting.
Having a standing army, doing nothing, for maybe years on end, is wasteful.
Cooper Sullivan
>A non-hierarchical militia composed of members of a community self-organizing for mutual self-defense against a hostile neighbor (such as that organized by the CNT during the Spanish Civil War) would thus be valid in a collectivist (anarchist-communist, social anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, market-syndicalist, etc.) setting and deemed invalid in an individualist (free market anarchist, egoist, etc.) setting if involuntary.
You'd have a point if this passage didn't directly make clear that this is the issue being addressed.
This reminds me of people who reads Marx passage about the bourgeois cucking each other and thinking that it means that the white race must be cucked.
You're a moron.
Joseph Price
Wtf? No it isn't.
A third party cannot even get INVOLVED. There is nothing in this passage about exclusivity.
Jayden Ross
Why do you ignore the the passage that comes right after that? The one that clarifies?
Violence by the police, who are unelected and unrecallable and thus not an organization that directly represents a people, is not self-defence.
Only an organization that is directly appointed by the people and controlled by them could such violence be regarded voluntary self-defence.
Btw "the rule of the jungle": Literally communism.
Brandon Thompson
Most idiotic post of the day
Cooper Wright
It's literally just talking about group self-defense again. IE - the ones being aggressed against, are the ones fighting off the aggressors
OK? So now you're going to tell me this passage is about police being accountable as opposed to not existing at all?
No, it's a reference to the behavior of animals.
Jaxon Taylor
en.wikipedia.org
Fuck you buddy :)
A lot of animals are mutualist in nature and thus live under communism.
Most don't, but a lot do. Beside whenever we're in the jungle, we live in communism.
Yes and it says it is allowed.
would thus be valid in a collectivist (anarchist-communist, social anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, market-syndicalist, etc.) setting
You need to learn how to read a little better.
If it is accountable, then it is not police, much like it is not capitalism if it is not based upon private property.
Nicholas Martinez
youtube.com
would thus be valid in a collectivist (anarchist-communist, social anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, market-syndicalist, etc.) setting
who gives a shit if only people under attack are allowed to retaliate
You think criminals are going to pick targets stronger than they are? Ever heard of a border run? When criminals strike and then escape to another jurisdiction to escape retaliation?
[redefinition intensifies]
Charles Robinson
What about A non-hierarchical militia composed of members of a community self-organizing for mutual self-defense against a hostile neighbor do you not understand?
If the distinction is unimportant, then so is the distinction between capitalism and socialism.
Connor Moore
by the way, please read "Mutual Aid"
Evan Nelson
The part where universal law enforcement is EXPLICITLY disallowed. LOL! DO IT YOURSELF FAGGOT!
[false equivalence intensifies]
[non sequitur intensifies]