@Wisdom Pen  
Thanks

@Nbj  
Found the source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_cellular_automaton

@Scp-3125  
Cool gif  
…  
What is it?

And egoist anarchism is her antisocial son

Lmao that song reference is on point

As an AnCom I can confirm that arguments between AnComs and AnCaps are exactly like that sometimes, and both have a valid argument for their points.

@Celladoir  
That just sounds like Military dictatorship

@Scp-3125  
anarcho monarchy or anarcho royalism, if I’m reading them correctly, is a joke proposed ideology of government where an individual rules for life, but upon their death there is absolutely no rules of succession, and it falls to the people, likely through civil war, to decide who will sit on the throne next.

@ThePhilosopony  
greta is green anarchism (murray bookchin type), not anprim

@ThePhilosopony  
Enlightenment and technology vs unga bunga

Missed out Anarcho-Transhumanism Gretas twin sister.

@Background Pony #F4C2  
“Anarch monarchs”…what?

Where are the anarch monarchs or syndlacis’s?

We got the Soviet, the Jeff Bezos, the savage, the mentally-disabled one, and their neglectful sociopath of a mother

[DELETED]

@O. Hancock  
@Moonatik  
Nope

@O. Hancock  

 
bcuz it is

@Background Pony #E3C2  
That makes anarcho-capitalism sound completely unsustainable, naturally leading to violence, disease, mass poverty, and moreover, other forms of government/society. Lol.

@HotlineChicago1989  

 
Not exactly true. While there have been no consciously anarcho-capitalistic nations, legal systems resembling it have existed in various places for various durations, e.g. Ireland during Brehon law, the Icelandic Commonwealth, Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tribes, and the 19th-century American West.

@HotlineChicago1989  
Actually considering Max Stirner, one of the founders of anarchism through his notion of “union of egoists” did not care about left or right, both ancom and ancap are valid.
 
Naturally ancom has a disadvantage since communism requires compulsive enforcement to survive. Otherwise the moment someone protests it is over.

@HotlineChicago1989
 
Well, yeah, lol. I mean, I’m no communist, but you’re not wrong about any of that as far as I’m aware. Sounds spot on.

@O. Hancock  
Sure, but that’s because most anarchism (AnComs, mutualism, etc., etc.) is considered leftist, with anarcho-capitalism in turn considered an oxymoronic term on par with “Christian Atheist”: TL;DR, most AnCaps only prioritize ending the Public state, but instead of making a stateless society, they’d effectively make a Private state, i.e. With law enforcement, judges, and even firefighters and roads being all run by for-profit industries. At BEST, it peters out to what is called Minarchism (the public sector is still around, just trimmed of unnecessary expenditures, such as, for example, several trillion dollars spent on overseas wars against countries that realistically can’t launch an attack in retaliation) in practice, or becomes One State Under Copyright at worst.
 
It doesn’t help that Anarcho-Capitalism has only been around for a few decades (with no nation putting AnCap principles into practice - Somalia doesn’t count, BTW), while various leftist schools of anarchism have been around since the Industrial Revolution (and several left anarchist countries HAVE actually been put into practice, such as Revolutionary Catalonia, the Free Territory of Ukraine, etc., with their “downfall” not being failures of the countries internal policies, but being blasted into submission by larger nations with larger armies - and frankly, saying “Our Ideolgy is better than yours because we can kick your ass in a war!” doesn’t sound like taking the moral high ground to me).

@HotlineChicago1989  
That sounds like anarcho-communism.

@Prometheus labs CEO  
Well, except that most anarchists I know emphasize they don’t want to abolish all hierarchy, just UNJUSTIFIED hierarchy, such as hierarchy by birthright (especially the “divine right of kings” type), racial/sexual hierarchy (often created to deny certain groups power so that those already with power can maintain their status by denying competition for it), hierarchy by wealth (especially since most of the economic elites often inherit their wealth, thus making it a roundabout version of the “birthright hierarchy” I mentioned earlier), etc., etc.
 
And before you say “That sounds like a meritocracy to me”, Libertarian Socialist Rants addresses this point in a counter-response to TJ Kirk’s Drunken Peasants podcast , and to paraphrase him, a society seeking hard hiarchies by an individual’s skill will ultimately hit the Peter Principle, where people get promoted until they hit the level they’re suddenly incompetent at doig their job.
 
To avoid getting too long-winded about this, anarchists admit that some level of hierarchy is inevitable, but seek to MINIMIZE it as much as possible (usually by fostering environments where everyone’s input is accounted for, such as workplace democracy), rather than run to the endzone of investing all political power into a single King/Dictator barking orders for an entire country, or all economic power into a single CEO barking orders for an entire corporation.

Anarchy in itself is an oxymoron/paradox. anarchy would inevitably lead to small hierarchal structures forming again, and then eventually city states, and you know the rest. The only way to ensure no new political systems emerge is to have some kind of government ruling over everyone to make sure nothing forms, but that isn’t anarchy is it.