What are some pro-anarchist games?

Fallout New Vegas I guess.

ancom stuff is all utopian pipedream garbage where humanity is magically removed from all possible non-egalitarian thought

Things no one says

By continuously dismantling systems of power. Might makes right authoritarianism already exists today in statist society. Governments use the police and military to maintain a monopoly on force.

Anarchists believe in the fairy tale that humans simply won't centralize power for themselves and become defacto rulers, despite this happening countless times in history.

you can't, everything leads to authoritarianism

Only a right-wing liberal would be retarded enough to define anarchism the way OP did.

how would you deal with potential warlords from communes around yours

with bullets

So anarchism is just constantly murdering people over basic human nature?

but what if warlords have more bullets?

then what the fuck does it mean

Those warlords already exist, they're called governments.

Yes
'Treat with others as you wish to treated with' is really the only ultimate law humans should need, second only to 'fuck around and find out' for when the first fails

You can't, its a pipe dream for a reason

Anarchism is established

Get a group of friends together into a gang

Start to extort protect from others

Gang grows bigger

Enter trade with other gangs and cities

Take control of key routes and cities

Establish a country

Response?

you can't just draw the anarchy symbol wrong, that's against the rules of anarchy!

correct, so how do you ensure warlords don't exist under anarchism

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

Anarchism is continuously murdering parasites who try to create coercive hierarchies that benefit themselves to the detriment of others, yes.

Congratulations, you just discovered how the Nations of Antiquity formed

I want anarchy to be installed so I can kick you niggas in the mouth.

get a group together in response at step 3

force them to disband or kill them

so who organizes the military? And what stops them from seizing control?

Kill them before they get too big.
That’s literally it.

They didn't accept your terms and murder you instead because they outnumber you

Now what?

Anarchy Reigns

What's Hermes' staff doing there in the background?

Sounds like a very stable and fun life. Now why would I give up my life of stability and peace for an even higher chance of death?

I said step 3, not step 4. An anarchist community wouldn't accept a gang of lowlife thugs ripping people off, this is a community that's already toppled a nation state.

so da gubberment stops robbing you to build shit like ROADS and SCHOOLS and HOSPITALS

Why do you continuously surrender your rights to self-direction to a state that sees you as a disposable resource?

None. This is expected behaviour. You, your gang, and the other gangs you enter trade/general agreements with are all operating under the assumption of mutual self-interest. You are a group of people who understand that in order to fulfill their self-interests it is more effective if they do so as a group. Those who don't have those interests are not welcome in the group. The group only exists for the facilitation of those interests. Nothing about any of this represents modern government. Read Stirner's Critics for a more indepth explanation of the "union of egoists" and the "egoistic union".

"Military" only exists in response to an outside threat, and is composed of volunteers. Look to history for examples.

How is a poorly trained volunteer force without advanced equipment gonna stand up to a large conscripted force with advanced equipment?

Because without the structure of the state my life would probably be much worse.

because i make 3 figures and life under anarchism would be worse for me

Said state has been at peace for hundreds of years and is safe, meaning the only real risk I have of my life being endangered or otherwise ruined is very, very small.
I'll gladly trade rights for that protection yes. The idea of a community where you'd have to kill people on the regular to prevent opportunists and also run the risk of simply being outgunned by an opposing force does not sound like a good life to me.

6 figures*

There are 195 countries in the world and they all exist in a state of anarchy without one another.

Who is going to do that dismantling? How will they compete with organized, well armed groups that think they should be in charge? It's so funny how quickly government comes back as the answer when faced with the slightest bit of reality.

Anarchy means stealing, looting, murder and no rules at all.

Anarchy is just a power vaccuum, ready to accept anyone who rises up to take power no matter their ideals. Thinking you have an actual theoretical framework around anarchy just exposes you as a massive fucking psued.

Also lol "please guys follow the rules for my anarchy symbol (TM)"

Anarchism is just a radical form of direct democracy, it would be enforced through a militia which would be the people of the anarchists commune

Anarchism is one of the dumbest ideologies, at most it can work at the village level, but not beyond that, it'd be impossible to manage anything at a national scale.
Also it extremely easily turns into a cult of personality following the commands of whomever got the ball rolling (Makhno in Ukraine)

Anarchism is just a process. It's the anarchists job to destroy power structures so they never amass too much power, but the anarchist can never truly "win". Nor should they. It's a constant struggle. A good example of anarchism in action is piracy.

This is an exhibit of where anarchism will lead humanity long-terem.

And if a large amount of said militia would try to seize power and centralizes themselves?

Baldur's Gate 3.
Because anyone could fuck your waifu, which is one of the principles of anarchy.

How would piracy sustain itself without rich nations run by actual governments to plunder?

Anarchy is just a power vaccuum

Anarchist communes still have a militia , anarchism's main tenants is ensuring that no state has a completely monopoly on violence by ensuring that the "means of violence" are given to the people. So everyone is armed

What is even with this board in 2024? Do they do anything interesting anymore? Is it all just porn now? Is it even still the fastest board on Anon Babble?

So everyone is constantly shooting eachother? You'll run out of people fast. I mean its not even like your anarchy shithole could even run a hospital or birth clinic.

Easy, you don't.

And if a large amount of said militia would try to seize power and centralizes themselves

Then they wouldn't be anarchists anymore it just depends on if the anarchists can defeat given threats like any other form of government in history? What makes anarchism difficult is the fact that it's a very strict direct democracy not necessarily anarchists being unable to arm and organize themselves militarily. There have been successful anarchist revolts in history

Anarchy is a LARP, it will never exist.

So everyone is constantly shooting eachother

Okay britbong lmao. Having access to the means of violence doesn't inherently make people violent

You can't. Look how CHAZ descended into warlordism like immediately.

Anarchist communes

Doesn't exist. Communal structures, including your super special hippy communes, rely on hierarchical structures to persist.

direct democracy

Eventually the people will want demagogues, if you put in guardrails to keep them out then it stops being direct democracy since it no longer reflects the will of the people
Anarchism makes the assumption all of humanity will just become anarchists after a while

Be the mightiest.

a house with you and 3 roomates is already a commune with no hierarchies, what's hard about imagining that on a larger scale?

It wouldn't, that's the point. Anarchism cannot win because another power structure will always establish itself. Any anarchist who actually believes in some kind of an utopian vision of a society without rules is a fool. It's purpose is to erode currently existing power structures. It's like entropy.

Anyway that's my own sect of anarchy I just made up on the spot and anyone who tells me that's not what anarchy means is "the man" trying to impose his will upon me and can go get fucked.

Yeah, but it means that when they get violent over stupid shit they have a rifle to shoot you with instead of fists to punch you with
guess which one is deadlier
also good job ignoring that some chaotic disorganized ancap shithole won't be able to provide meanigful healthcare

Fastest bord is Anon Babble and while I am sure there are some intresting things going on there, it just isn't worth having to dig trough the heaps of porn.

anyone with life experience knows that dispensing with all formal rules just leaves a free reign to the most cunning bully

Then they wouldn't be anarchists anymore it just depends on if the anarchists can defeat given threats like any other form of government in history?

Of course a government can also be overthrown but the chances of a centralized government with monopoly on violence is far less likely than a community where the people themselves are the force. Simply because collusion and revolts would be that much easier to construct.
I'm not saying a smaller community couldn't function, my question is why would anyone want Anarchy when it is clearly less stable and less safe than nation states?

Plus, we already have cults of personalities who can easily direct a large group of people simply because that is how humans are. We look up to leader figures. Would a community simply have to kill them pre-emptively simply because they are a popular voice with a lot of power?

Conservatives are so cringe, they know how boring and cringe their movement is so they keep trying to steal others like anarchy and punk, cringe.

Saying cringe three times

Conservatives are the save option that has worked for 400000 years and will still work today.
Liberals are gambling with the fate of human society and losing currently, apparent by how everything slowly goes to shit.

This is pants on head retarded. The militia will just become a state again. Man has never existed without a state, even the most primitive humans had laws, traditions, and hierarchies, however basic and pragmatic.

sprawled

not scrawled

Unsurprising

and by that you mean conservatives are liberals just behind the curve by a decade or two

This, it's that simple

Next to none. Even more left-leaning and progressive games like Metaphor dismiss the idea of a world with near zero hierarchies.

I will play as a lib then, sounds more interesting

Wouldn't people just "voluntarily associate" into a state and bully non-state entities to compliance?

Because the more people you add into the system the less reliant you become on every other member and thus it becomes less stable. Mediating with 4 people under the same roof is easy compared to doing so with 100+ whom all live in their own houses and have their own environments to care for.

a house with you and 3 roomates is already a commune with no hierarchies

Either one of you owns the house or you are all renting, either way someone sits atop the hierarchical structure of that household by default. The only way to make that situation equivalent to a non hierarchy is to have total co-ownership of the house, which opens the way for dispute and conflict which requires mediation which requires a power above the four of you, another hierarchy.

"Uh no you see humans would just stop being greedy, because they just would!"

The Anarch route is basically the "good" playthrough. Even though the game occasionally pretends "all sides are gray" the Anarchs save your life multiple times, are only ever helpful to you and never betray you.

I mean that's all any system is, you would just have to distribute the might evenly such that no one is really capable of overpowering anyone else. It would be very hard to achieve in practice though.

The ideal anarchic society would be a small community of people who see eye to eye and can self govern by virtue of the system being small enough to be properly decentralized and mutually controlled, and of course homogeneous enough for everyone in it to be satisfied with the status quo.
In itself it can work, there's many historical cases of such a thing, a kibbutz for instance is kinda close to how an anarchic society would work, the problems arise when you factor communication and interaction between these small bubbles, you end up with the same problem old city states faced, nobody guarantees you other anarchic communities are as peaceful and accepting as you are and won't start shit.
Granted the current systems don't really do anything about that either, another problem anarchic societies would run into would be in cases of mass contagion, since lacking a major centralized system for both communication and handling of health matters would pose significant issues in terms of containing things like the kung-flu, though again it's not like the current society could do much about those either, but it's still better than nothing.

ur all gay

Good job realizing the inherent flaw of Anarchism.

Keeping any power structure totally flat over time would itself require the intervention of a super powerful authority. That is closer to the reality of what most of these people want, which is how you get the obvious irony of people with anarchy symbols repping state and globalist institutions and those same institutions telling them they're good little revolutionaries

isn't capitalism just "money makes right" we already gonna end up a authoritarian russia 2.0 with Trump second term, but as for the question we already have examples of hunter-gatherer tribes and neolithic settlements which lacked any clear hierarchies mostly because everyone was equally reliant on one another and can't just amass power over a group easily without being punished or exiled by the group.

Not really, no.

order without rulers

not feasible, there would be no power to enforce any form of order, retarded if you believe it is realistically possible for any prolonged period of time

I can do whatever I want

actual anarchy, without a ruling force individuals could just do whatever they wanted provided they had the means/capability to do so ultimately this would just lead to the strong ruling again, anarchism's a meme ideology for this reason

Monarcho-anarchism is the answer, but nobody is ready for that conversation.

education, mutual respect and people predespositioned to dogpile onto anyone who oversteps boundaries. you can do it in some places already. delete the governing forces in, say, singapore or japan, and things might just work out in an anarchy, as long as there's no outside pressure (and even that is just a chance, shitty people are everywhere). do it in the us and monkeys with guns will rule within a week.

Monarcho-anarchism

no system can regulate itself.

aAaaaaaa I dispute I DISPUTE I'M TELLING YOU I DISAGREEEEEeees AAAAAA

Ok

might does make right though?

Do they do anything interesting anymore?

No. I browse some of the worst boards when I'm bored and Anon Babble is essentially "what if Anon Babble and Anon Babble were in a constant b8 war?"

capitalism is just "buy low, sell high," which maps out to a failstate where those with money are too lazy to spend it.

You're damn right.

just take the hierarchy out of a rigid hierarchical system and people will just keep going like nothing happened

Are you literally retarded?

Your entire premise is already false, you don't need a powerful authority to "keep a power structure flat" for the same reason you go to your doctor when you feel sick but don't let him tell you what videogames you should play, if you're stupid to the point you're unable to understand how basic human interaction works there's not point discussing anything.

what if i dont want to follow your anarchy symbol design? lol

It's a complete dumpster fire board that's pretty much Anon Babble for trannies

you don't, it's a shitty ideology only low IQs believe in

Why do you pretend that human suddenly won't be greedy and want more than they have? Clichés form even in small places like a workplace, why wouldn't they form in something as big as a commune?

AnCap is literally just this but corporations sending out mcdeath squads instead of citystates sending out taxmen

Because humanity values compassion over greed.

everyone is already constantly shooting eachother because the cities are filled with niggers and your state police who hold the monopoly on violence won't do anything about it anymore. In the eyes of the state if you took up being a vigilante and started removing these pesky uppity violent niggers you would be no better than them. If there was no such monopoly and each person was partially responsible for maintaining order, the uppity quick-to-violence niggerbrain types would be the first to go because they represent the greatest threat to the systems stability.

but also the death squads are autonomous and spontaneous and it just works

The problem with "anarchy" and really any other political/moral philosophies is that they never account for the low IQ, the non-subscribers, and generally the people looking to get the most by playing outside the rules of the philosophy.

As for games with anarchy represented perhaps only the fallout games.

games where the Armstrong character wins? I get tired of fighting for the parasites

Don't forget "do you have any more pictures of your fully clothed 4/10 co worker she's so hot I can't stop gooning to her"

Just like communism, it fails to account for the human factor. These meme ideologies would never work and anyone can come to this conclusion if they put a few minutes of thought instead of following shit blindly just to get a cool label.

philosophies don't account for free-riders

big if true

Your silly utopia works till you run into a stalin type who cares more about power than anything else

history says otherwise though

I'm going to ignore your analogy which is historically terrible, I assume you are some kind of ESL and a low IQ individual who struggles to form ideas or transfer them to text.

You absolutely need a greater power to maintain a flat power structure between individuals. Flat power structures are not natural, people are tribal by nature and some will always gravitate towards leadership positions. People who form hierarchies are more efficient and outcompete those who don't, absorbing or disenfranchising them. The only way to prevent this over large scales of time or population is with a greater power. People do not organically decide to never take any advantage over their neighbors.

autonomous and spontaneous

Yeah there will be some "autonomous" and "spontaneous" combustion of your local grain silos, all right.

Sponsored by Impossible C4™! Made from 0.1% plant fiber!

They would inevitably form but they can be purged much faster due to the commune being a much, much smaller society with a much more efficient control system.
A lot, and I mean A LOT of the problems of modern societies arise due to the sheer size of the social structure making it impossible to exercise proper control, why do you think corporations are so hungry about stealing your data and putting spyware on your machines? Because they desperately want the control our modern societies make it real hard for them achieve purely by virtue of their sheer size.
Mutual control of like, 100, or even a thousand people is hard but doable, controlling hundreds of millions is laughable, communes are certainly not immune to basic human nature but they can also deal with it much more efficiently.

Anarchists are extremely fond of the easy and fun stage where they get to murder people, break things, and steal shit, but the hard questions of how society is supposed to function after that are all You Problems (oh, and they get to go right back to murdering again if they don't like what you come up with).

real anarchy hasn't been tried

That too lmao. The worst part is that they've essentially set up generals where they talk about the same things over and over..... in the board that's supposed to be random. No wonder Anon Babble became the off topic discussion board

Were those tribes really egalitarian? I find it hard to believe they didn't at least have division of labour based on sex leading to some form of patriarchy, and of course age too. Maybe it was less than early settled societies, sure.

Not really any different than what we have right now with all the sociopathic billionaires and generally rich scamsters everywhere.

You mean, like now?

Compassion which dissolves the further you move away from your immediate surrounding meaning the larger a system the higher the likelihood of a group forming who want things better for themselves. It is very naïve to think that all humans would just be kind and compassionate if it was anarchy.

Shadowrun: Dragonfall's main hub is a pseudo-anarchist district which relies on de facto local leaders anyway because someone has to hold the reins

Tolkien go back to your grave, the dark timeline won and the world is now full of Amazon fulfillment centers and other signs of heretical industrialization. I'll call you back up after WW3 resets us back a few thousand years ok bud

Anon Babble was never good.
also CP spammers ruined it for everybody

I still haven't seen a good argument for how an anarchic commune would run anything that requires complex chains of productions and highly trained experts like a hospital
I guess anarchy means going back to shamans and bloodletting

It's a pro virginity game

here is the RIGHT sort of anarchy, it means "Order without Rulers"

anyway here are the rules for what Anarchy means

Compassion just doesnt scale linearly unfortunately, the solution is to not form giant countries and just live in communes but that wont stop someone from wanting more

big jej

No way, people choose self-interest every time. I figured this is something anarchists would agree with hence why there has to be constant vigilance to prevent the re-emergence of exploitation. I mean hard left stuff like that is usually good about having realist views on human motivation, or at least that's the impression I got.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of hierarchy, but I wouldn't expect anything less of a mutt given how your entire society is about slavery and (You) believing you are a simply temporarily embarassed slave driver.

You can't. Anarchists and communists are people with inferior IQs unable to understand reality.

lol look at this

Shamans are leaders THOUGH. That isn't even anarchy. There is no such thing as a functional, long running anarchic system between human beings

"And who will lead this anarco state ? A king of course!"

You don't.
It's pure fantasy. It's like communism without the only thing that makes communism at least somewhat viable, the all powerful ultra authoritarian state.

uhh people will just voluntarily come together to prevent it even if it could cost them everything!

anarchists cope by saying they will stop them, but with what army? in an anarchist society who would willingly choose to be a footsoldier who goes in first? at least in the communist fantasy world the all powerful state can order their soldiers in to crush a potential threat under the fear of death, but what does anarchy have? nothing. anarchists exist solely to roll over and die when a powerful organization moves into their territory.

this is true, i want better things for me and my commune but fuck if i care for people that i've never met

Anarchic communes do not require complex chains of production in the first place since they're small, or hospitals, if you do not understand this you really should go back to your books instead of shitposting about politics you don't understand on the videogame board.

OK ESL who things a hierarchy is a kind of sandwich and tortures monkeys to relieve stress, when you figure out what you are trying to say come back and tell me about it

If there was no such monopoly and each person was partially responsible for maintaining order, the uppity quick-to-violence niggerbrain types would be the first to go because they represent the greatest threat to the systems stability.

see the thing is you are assuming the every person would act perfectly and assume exactly equal responsibility towards maintaining order when that would not be the case, there would be people who have little or no interest in fighting those who disrupt order and there would be those who would want to take a great amount of responsibility in fighting to maintain order, the latter would inevitably band together and create a ruling force, a monopoly on violence you call it

Just takes one person to ruin anything. There's a reason why every human society ever recorded has some kind of hierarchy.
Btw nice try mentioning bureaucratic countries with very strict law enforcement. These are the ones it would fail the quickest, you fags forget that society is a system, and once you take out part of the system, it doesn't keep working like nothing ever happened.

Anarchists want everyone to live in constant misery and uncertainty because "statists" can not ensure that 100% can live in peace and safety

naruhudo...

On its way to beat Roosevelt in number of presidencies.
The leftist mass suicides would be endless

but nobody is ready for that conversation

The low IQ's favorite phrase. Basically means "I can't articulate why I feel this way but I have to say something."

So what do they do when they get sick then? Die?

What is it called when a collection of sociopaths sway a majority of the populace to do a cultural genocide and rule by fear. No one prospers and it ultimately results in the absolute collapse of the civilization?

And where would you draw the line of when to purge someone? Revolts don't have to be aggressive, they can be insidious. Would a natural leader type with a lot of friends be a target for purging simply because he is popular? If you don't purge him what is to say he won't gather up his following and suddenly revolt?
Sounds to me that beyond this flowery view of everyone holding hands and being an equal is a brutal game of whack a mole.

Doctors did not exist before the nation state

There's no need to think about it. We know it's an unworkable system because it's not in real-world practice on any significant scale.

I've never understood anarchism or anarchists or why they subscribe to such an ideology. have they never seen what happens when a power vacuum happens? someone will ALWAYS fill it lol. there is no place that is all about having no rules and no rulers at all lol

Communism

Stick to the plan, Vance 2028 and 2032, token Democrat 2036, then Barron can take the crown

Anarchy is freedom from the state, which means I can do whatever I want and suffer the consequences without being in the wrong

Reddit lib fanfic of Republicans.

elitism among anarchists

yes

No one prospers and it ultimately results in the absolute collapse of the civilization?

Just embrace markets like China did.

the solution is to not form giant countries and just live in communes but that wont stop someone from wanting more

To which a group of individuals decide to do just that and by means of a centralized and trained army decide to annex surrounding communes and voila we have a nation state.

Communism

You have no chain of production or hospitals, so you have no access to modern medicine and everything that goes along with it. How exactly would a doctor help?

The greatest feat attested to medicine prior to settling into highly hierarchical agrarian societies is trepanning, which means you should fit right in with your brain spilling out of your head

sounds like every attempt at communism ever

Because you just admited true anarchy would be a life of constant violence.

Part of the reason Bioshock 2 is so hated is because it is at it's heart a criticism of collectivism/leftism.

One quote I always remember about the villain was something like "she would rather everyone be equally miserable than anyone rise above another to be happy".

traveling apothechary with leeches

here's a good pic

It's an idealist pipedream anon, you're not meant to view it pragmatically. Only revel in the dream of the journey to achieve it enacting righteous violence against those that hold the world down or utopian peace of livig in the world. You don't bring up how it could fail because the dream is based around the idea it just won't.

theres a reason why sci fi utopias usually involve mass lobotomy

Anarchic communes do not require complex chains of production

So they summon modern medicine from the dirt? Not to mention stuff like x-ray machines or MRTs? Going back 200 years in medicine truly is worth abosling the ebil gubberment

Now tell us how you plan to prevent a government from forming somewhere else and invading your city-state.

that sounds retarded. surely anarchists can't be that retarded lol

surely anarchists can't be that retarded lol

they are

anarchists actually believe this

Yeah so basically if we don't like your ideas or simply get a whim one day, we'll just kill you and move on

wtf what do you mean you'd rather stick with your imperfect but largely stable government?

i mean, yeah, probably most anarchists today never grew out of their retarded 16 year old edgy phase and shit. like modern communists
but what about the intellectuals and shit from the 1700-1800 and shit that were anarchists? were they also retarded?

sunnyray.xo

Which is why you need a perfect being or a group of beings with godlike power, whose only purpose in existence is to kill anyone trying to assert themselves in a position of power over anyone else.

You can't. Every system will eventually turn into some type of authoritarianism because, surprisingly, the people in power want more of it. Perhaps if we made corruption punishable with a death sentence there might be some improvements.

were they also retarded?

the opposite, they were grifters making loads of money. Besides Diogenes, he was cool

mfw im an anarcho-nihilist reading this thread

That's up to a commune's internal standards to decide, generally such things don't really happen because of the nature of the system itself but you're right in that it is a problem that will always exist in some forms.
The way anarchic communes work around this is that, due to the lack of a central authority and all the relevant consequences that come with it, such issues are not common, when internal disagreements arise the individual can simply leave and go wherever they want, or come back if they change their mind as long as they accept the community's rules.
There's actually many social studies about this kind of issue when it comes to, again, kibbutz and other anarchic or communist communes, since the entire power structures are different that kind of person very rarely comes up in a commune and when they do they simply leave and integrate in other societies, also because if you're actually power hungry you're not easily satisfied by "ruling" a bunch of hippies in the middle of nowhere who might very well turn on you.

The real problem anarchic communes face in terms of survival are largely due to illnesses and possible natural catastrophes, that's the major weakness of the system due to its inherent small size, and of course in the current world order the fact that 99% of the world is living on an ultracapitalist model which is actively hostile to everything else.
The other issue that anarchic society would run into would be in the general development of infrastructure for communication between people around the world, that and other things like scientifical research are very hard for an anarchic society to achieve due to the lack of centralization and a strong driving force with vested interest, which is the same exact reason why open source stuff lags behind proprietary software and always will.

Anarchists can't answer this question without resorting to delusions about human nature.

Enlightenment is a hell of a drug

I don't give a shit about any of this, it'd be pretty great if everyone did

I don't know what's the best system but modern Democracy ain't it. Universal suffrage was a mistake, some people simply shouldn't have the right to vote.
Maybe give people fractions of a vote according to a few milestones, education level or whatever. All I know is that if you are on welfare your vote really shouldn't be worth as much as mine, specially since you'll have a higher propensity to vote to whoever politician/party who gave you the gibs to begin with.

If you hold little responsibility for maintaining the order of the group then you do hold the same self-interests as the group, thus you are not welcome in the group. You are going to be exiled, and if you refuse you are going to be killed. You can go join a group that holds as little interest for retaining order as you, which will obviously not last for very long. The failure of this group only reinforces the overall system of groups even further; groups who maintain proper order are rewarded and propagate and those that have no interest in doing so do not continue to exist.

The same way you prevent communism from devolving into might makes right authoritarianism: you don't

Perhaps if we made corruption punishable with a death sentence there might be some improvements.

Yeah, we saw how it went for burgers, right?

Anarchism as a form of government is so detached from reality that to hold these views sincerely you must be a misantrope.
Otherwise, the only logical explanation I have is that "Anarchism" is a front for Communism. As in, a bunch of Communists sat down in their weekly circlejerk(literal) and tried figuring out how to get all these violent criminals and unsophisticated simpletons too stupid to understand the brilliance of Communism on their side, and they figured that turning these people into Anarchists will help their global revolution.

This, people that aren't like me and don't share my opinion shouldn't be allowed to vote. That would be the ultimate democracy.

but what about the intellectuals and shit from the 1700-1800 and shit that were anarchists? were they also retarded?

You have to have in mind these people were living on the age of revolutions, and were really tired of monarchs. Democracy as we know nowadays was just another concept as well.

Enlightenment is a hell of a drug

if they were enlightened. shouldn't they subscribe to ANYTHING that wasn't anarchism? like, were they thinking their rag tag band of educated bums would have a shot at bringing down the government or what?

Perhaps if we made corruption punishable with a death sentence there might be some improvements.

That's exactly what the Chinese have been doing for the last decade and it's just served as a way to consolidate power and eliminate political rivals.
Turns out anti-corruption measures don't mean much when corrupt politicians are the ones who define what "corruption" means.

You know universal suffrage is a really modern thing and even the greeks thought it was a stupid idea, right? We are just experiencing the system failing in real time. Politics used to be something handled by well read aristocrats, nowadays it's basically a circus where the average person just vote on the funniest clown.

There's actually many social studies about this kind of issue when it comes to, again, kibbutz and other anarchic or communist commune

How are studies made about "anarchist" communes surrounded by "statist" governments representative of how anarchist communes would behave in a world without any such protective structures?

How would the enforcement of rules even work in practice?

Bob and Steve gets into an argument

Bob flips and beats Steve badly

What would his punishment be? If Bob is a very popular person who would enforce his punishment when they can simply say Steve deserved it? If there is a punishment in the form of imprisonment then you suddenly have laws that when broken can remove your rights.
What would happen if the community is in disagreement on what to do because of aforementioned popularity of Bob?

Okay. I decided that you are a subhuman and don't deserve to vote.

Anarchists don't like communists because communism is just a middle stage that should lead to anarchy in the first place.

Sigma games whatever that means

yeah but still. anarchism of all ideologies? like didn't they think "you know what dudes, us 5 anarchists kinda don't have a shot vs those 500 000 democrats" or whatever

lol

all these retards describing anarchism as whatever their 12 years old underage faggot ass experienced in high school

so, what is anarchy? i only know that it means no rules and no government and shit. but that doesn't sound realistic one bit

I'm really mad because no one is using MY definition, but I won't tell you what it is because then you could criticize it which would make me even more mad

Stay mad

Every single individual that lives under a statist government is honour bound to the statist ideals and can never, ever do something that doesn't conform to the state's authoritarian rules

Do you even read the shit you write?

Would post the wkuk anarchy scene but this thread is >20 posts in so no one would click it

Yes, we as the elite should only be allowed to vote. And of course being the elite we should have a better standard of living than those low class apes. Also, laws shouldn't really affect us as much, I mean we can vote for that LOL.

You can think that, just get more people who think this way and explain exactly why people like me don't deserve to vote then convince the majority.

youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs

Only enlightened post in this entire thread.
Are those hips real or fake? They look like somebody put the hips sliders to max and everything else to min. Just wish she had a bigger rack and I'll not be able to stop cumming.

They don't pay me to teach retarded dropouts on Anon Babble elementary school levels of knowledge so you're on your own there.

The elite doesn't really need votes for any of that. We are way past the bourgeois memes.

Monarcho-anarchism is the answer

That's just feudalism you dumb fuck

me. when discussan anarcharism

Anarchy Online

youtube.com/watch?v=2PweoTaa_OA

Now tell me again about how a strong psychopath wouldn't be happy just taking over a commune of hippies.

the real problem anarchic communes face in terms of survival are largely due to illnesses and possible natural catastrophes

Or literally any other group that is more violent or better armed in the immediate area.
When try to sell Anarchy you don't get to pretend we are thousands of years in the past and we'll start from there. Make Anarchy make sense in the modern world.

we weren't taught this shit in school

are you fucking retarded?
are you completely devout of intellect?
Do you not understand that a kibbutz inside Israel benefits from the Israeli state?
Do you not understand that if you turn your farm into an anarchist commune, you still benefit from the fact that the country you in is part of the international community, part of various trade agreements and defensive alliances and most importantly, the internal structure of the state?

You can not apply social studies made about such "anarchist communes" to a hypothetical world without actual states because the conditions are completely different.

I don't surrender shit, I do what I want. If you're surrendering to the state maybe you're the retarded one.

mfw anarching (it is very important.)

Socrates predicted that would happen. Plato explained why Democracy was a terrible idea and offered alternatives. No one paid attention.

If Bob is a very popular person who would enforce his punishment when they can simply say Steve deserved it?

There is nothing wrong with this. Might is right, and Bob has more might via popularity. Steve was unable to garner any for reasons not explained. If Bob has convinced the people he is more essential to the self-interests of the group than Steve, then he has.

What if in some objective sense Steve did not deserve it, and an undeserving man was beaten?

Then they are less effective at maintaining order than their peer groups, and continued behaviour of this type will eventually result in the self-destruction of the group. This is a preferable outcome

More people are beaten to death in the US than shot to death....

yes

I enjoyed reading about the government in Starship Troopers. Basically to be able to vote you had to go through boot camp and do a term of federal service. Didn't have to be participating in war as an infantryman or anything, but some kind of federal service. The idea behind that was that those who had gone through a similar grueling experience would trust one another, and would also be more likely to vote in favor of keeping the country afloat.
Even if you didn't do federal service you still had normal rights. Just not the ability to vote. Someone who isn't willing to put his neck on the line should not be able to vote on the future of others.

So what is anarchy ? Could I get a harem of middle schooler ?

uhh... vanguard anarchism?

yea but people might steal them from you

Even if you didn't do federal service you still had normal rights.

Yup, the mc parents aren't able to vote yet they have a beautiful and big house, live in a peaceful community, had a son... Truly the horror lmao

groups that are less good at maintaining order should die through natural selection

And they do! Thank you anarchy for killing yourself and delivering us statehood through objective might makes right means. Very cool.

you can eat the entire box of cheez-its and no one will say to you, "you are a fucking asshole." for fear of losing his or her life

What if I enslave them and make them work me in mine, I would get money and power, I would have some kind of authority no
Anarchy sound fun for about a month, after it's boring

You're literally describing modern democracy in the west

WtA:E would be one that comes to mind.
In BlazBlue: Entropy Effect you can somewhat choose an anarchic approach to the story although not sure if it's a bit of a reach, didn't care about the story too much.
Maybe Days Gone too?
I guess Just Cause 3 could be taken either way.

If you get enough rag tag bums together and convince most people....yeah.

nobody except retarded trannies will ever take your joke of an ideology seriously

Could I get a harem of middle schooler ?

Sure, provided you can defend them from others who want them, or perhaps a group of people who dislike your behaviour to the point where they would want to kill you over it. If you can do that then what's yours is yours.

who exactly decides what defines what level of responsibility doesn't get you ousted/murdered, if it's just the people then you've created a cycle that will lead to destruction of the group, the society will grow more and more demanding of order as you kick out/kill those who want less order, anyone who questions if the society is demanding too much responsibility/order will be kicked out/killed because they are arguing for lesser responsibility so it's only possible for your society to demand more and more order/responsibility and not less, eventually everyone will be kicked out/killed for not behaving perfectly in line and you're left with nothing
or before then once those you've kicked out enough that those you kicked out outnumber your group they just kill your group as revenge

Public masturbation: based under anarchy? Rap music? Porta-johns?

I am now convicted that Anarchism really is psyop by communists to make themselves look less retarded

left: how they think it’ll go

right: what actually happens

anarchists are mental children

Except I literally did not since even low class turds can vote.
Where the fuck are only the elite allowed to vote in the West?

cheez-its

Who would produce it ? If there is no authority, who will make a money who's worth something ? If you get a job then someone have some kind of authority over you
What would stop the workers to say "the factory is our now" ? The investissor might get angry and send goons to kill them

You don't and you shouldn't. Hail Caesar Augustus, Imperator!

Were there "routes" in this game? I remember there being a bunch of endings but the way you get to them was sort of linear

So what stop me from enslaving my ennemies and force them to build me a castle, making money for me so I get more ressource and make my territory become a mini country where I have all authority ?

They are homemade cheez-it analogues, painstaking to create and wholly satisfying to the spirit when eaten

I'm talking about the part where the elites have a better standard of living than the rest of the low class apes and laws don't affect them cause they can vote or lobby. Politicians are millionaires and immune to any kind of legal punishment other than a slap in the wrist.
Why do I care if I get to vote or not if in both situations the outcome is the exact same?

someone who has enslaved more of their enemies than you

You could, but then the commune will ummm akshually you and come to stone you to death. Unbeknownst to them thoughever you have armed your legion of sons born from your cunny wife harem and trained them into an effective fighting force in order to begin your conquest of the known world

shit, we didn't think about that

What if we ally instead of sending our precious slave to kill each other ? Giving us more possibility by having more slaves and ressource to build more

you need to pass some knowledge and psychological tests to earn a license to drive because driving badly can negatively affect the livelihood of others

you don't need a license to vote because uuh. because, uuuuh

No more firehouse subs in the anarchy??

ok hear me out
how do we build roads in an anarchist society

What if we ally instead of sending our precious slave to kill each other ?

you should do this and then you can easily use your slaves combined forces to take over other countries or force them into allegiance since you will have more slaves, eventually you will basically rule the world

Politicians are only immune to tax fraud and other economic crimes. Beat someone up on the street and he'll be in jail too.

Why do I care if I get to vote or not if in both situations the outcome is the exact same?

Because if only the elite have decision making power in your country then they can simply make the assault of low class apes a non-crime for the elite. Good luck passing such a law in modern democracy.

How do I get my diet cola?? This is bullshit

I thought the point of anarchy was not having authority

BRO WE NEED A TEST, TOO MANY DUMBS ARE VOOOOTING

the test in question

Is everything the ruling establishment says true?

Yes, I am a good voter

No, I prefer the gulag

you cant. thats literally the outcome unless everyone agrees to gang up on anyone whos growing stronger than the rest

you kill them?
how is this hard to understand?
only the wealthy and powerful are not subjugated by rule of laws unless an example is made of them for doing so against someone who is also wealthy and powerful

take down the government

replace it with anarchy

mc donald's establishes a government overnight

why would anyone follow the point of anarchy when they have power lol

you need to pass a moral and ethic test
you can be smart and still be an awful spiteful person
most people vote out of spite or fear

If civilization collapses, your skull will be some big muscly biker's soup bowl by the end of the first week.

Anarchy is your high school gym class forever.

Because voting is a right, driving is not.

Oh thank God. They have diet cola and they also have small fried chicken

people in power can abuse the system so we shouldn't try to have a system at all

The only difference between Anarchy and statism is how many players there are.

You can't, it's just stupid kids thinking that others will play fair and everyone will be friends. This can only happen in very very small groups and in special cases, because even family members stab each other all the time.

Because voting is a right

Why?

It shouldn't be a right.

Driving deserves to be a right more than voting. My taxes goes toward the roads. I paid for my car.
What do you do to deserve voting? Absolutely nothing.

Okay, your right to vote has been revoked

because letting the people (falsely) believe they have control/power over the way the country is run leads them away from unrest towards those who rule and towards unrest with each other

You don't. Human nature is to compete and to get to the top to ensure your continued bloodline.
Any form of anarchy will absolutely always end up with someone way bigger than you who happens to own a lot more guns than you and has more friends finally deciding he's at the top and can boss anyone around, so he'll set up ground rules that you have to follow.
Nice guys don't amass guns and strong friends, so whoever it is that reaches the top is going to be someone who doesn't give a fuck and simply shoots whoever disagrees, so congratulations, bad end.

ANSWER ME

We revoked yours first and you didn't even notice. How did we do it? Just asked a psychologist and he said you are mentally disabled.

my anarchy face

who exactly decides what defines what level of responsibility doesn't get you ousted/murdered

The people of the group. That is why there is a group in the first place: these people agreed on what is best for their self-interests together. Irrelevant question anyways; it is a particular question in a scenario when many groups will decide on many different ways to maintain success for their group. Many will choose incorrectly, and this is optimal.

if it's just the people then you've created a cycle that will lead to destruction of the group, the society will grow more and more demanding of order as you kick out/kill those who want less order,

You have changed arguments. Someone who argues that the current behaviour is too strict is arguing that the current behaviour is not facilitating the success of the groups self-interest as well as it could be. This is entirely different than someone who simple refuses to participate in the agreed upon behaviours, but still wants to remain in the group to leech off of the success of the others. In the case of the former, their argument will be heard, and a decision will be made. Whoever is right and whoever is wrong is irrelevant; as you said if the advocate was correct and exiled for it, then negative reinforcement of the system will occur and the group will (eventually, if this behaviour continues over a long period) be destroyed. This is optimal. The distinction here is that this has nothing to do with the previous case of someone declaring they have no interest in furthering the pursuit of the groups self interest, but want to continue to be a part of the group anyways to mooch off the benefit of their protection and safety (you should be thinking of jews right about now btw).

or before then once those you've kicked out enough that those you kicked out outnumber your group they just kill your group as revenge

Then the group didn't have the might to defend their right. Optimal.

here's the secret: everything devolves into might makes right authoritarianism with or without rules

I like the irony of having an official perfect circle and straight lines symbol that's supposed to mean "anarchy"

Might makes right always works. People seek monolithic leaders. Look at the US presidency and how all the energy is placed on the a single person. No one cares about the collective "faceless" congressmen.

It's simple, A strong guy does strong things, other men start to follow him for a mix of reasons.
If Might makes right was always this pure mess of butting heads how did ancient men create armies and rally men to their side? There is clearly some sort of nature to it.

The pure chaos people proclaim to exist through anarchy is a falsehood. Backstabbers and disputers exist, but for every one of them there are 10 followers.

Ok but being a slave to the incumbent power is better than NOTHING, right?

hmm...
kill yourself

FUCK YOU I WONT DO WHAT YOU TELL ME

you dont. nobody likes the cops, but nobody likes NOT having cops around.