By what mechanism is individualism ensured in post-capitalist societies...

By what mechanism is individualism ensured in post-capitalist societies? Anarchism and socialism are both highly democratic, correct? One could imagine this democratic organ being harnessed by a majority to enforce subjective cultural standards or the like on a minority. Is there a limit to what should be democratically decided? How is this limit defined?

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

I don't know how many serious answers you'll get here. A lot of people here like to be admitted authoritarians.

There are a lot of ways to do it if you ask me but you seem to answer your own question.

Really?

T. Oscar Wilde

Surely there are certain things (like murder and climate destruction) that absolutely must be prevented. How is the mechanism for enforcing this prevented from being repurposed for less legitimate causes?


Yes I've read that.

What drives someone to murder desu?

Enforcing? Force the Murder'er to be murderd instead by granting the possible victim the ability to controle ones life by self defence. Or perhaps the people who act against a person who destroys parts of the forest as they use the forest for recreation and enjoyment wich they desire to maintain.

Well yes "is there a limit to what should be democratically decided"

Didn't see the second part.
It's defined by arbitrary choice and irrational decision making, oh well.

Free association is also important to note.

Perhaps any group, to pass legislation, must give justification that the behavior they want to prohibit is personally damaging to them.

mob rule is truly utopian, you sound as bad as the ancaps. "well if you don't want someone to murder you then just take out an assassinations insurance policy so they'll get killed for killing you, duh"

The simple answer is that you actually have to work together with that minority. If you keep disregarding the opinion of that minority, then the community will fall apart.

You can do it in modern society because we have a centralised state with the power to enforce its own rules. Furthermore, the economy is structured in such a way that people don't actually have to work together to make it work (the opposite, in fact), and you never actually have to interact with your neighbours or the minorities you affect. If the state rules against any minority, that minority has no choice but to either accept it or leave the country.

If you remove that centralised state and economy, you are forced to cooperate with the people around you, and thus you are also forced to heed their concerns, or at least find a compromise.

You are a special kind of plep arnt you fam.

Being a Supreme Gentleman.

"lynch them with a mob" is not an answer because a mob could be assembled for illegitimate purposes, like conquering other communitites.

anarkiddies, not even once

What about contradicting interests of individuals who do not want to particpate in town meetings to discus issues away from their life or understanding?

stay plep fam

If these people are coming into conflict, then participating in the meetings is obviously relevant to their lives.

Explain to me why you would like to live in a society where conquest is allowed.

...

Stealing that.

They could but short of thought police I don't see the practical impact this is going to have on the individual. Unless you are pol/ levels of paranoid about MUH MUDSLIMES and their haram food

By being you own person and not following the ideas of others to be able to survive in a world were the few own the many.

i guess. i was thinking stuff like NOGUNZ et al


civil disobedience?

And what if they dont have their desires fullfilled if the general population has diffrint ideas with the solution to their problem.

Cause some people see what i do to be for illegitimate purposes and so create a legitimate purpose to lynch me as a mob after they decided to that by popular consensus.

I bet you're the kind of person that objects to the 'just go to somalia' rebuttal when it actually does apply to your version of anarchism

also drug prohibition and sexual discrimination


And you suppose having a gunfight about it is a better solution

What?

Only in the end fam.

I do something, a group sees what i do and call it illegitimate. They then try to tell me what i do is wrong i say fuck off this is my thing and i do the thing i want with it. Then they for the sake of that thing have found a legitimate purpose to get rid of me to save the thing.

Nice choice, I've seen that image before

Yeah I suppose more dead people is better than less dead people.

Nothing you're saying is answering my question.

Become an insurrectionist/post-leftist OP. Everyone will probably call you a lifestylist or whatever