Leonard Rittermy personal investment alignment chart
sofia ☮️🏴@paniq "investing in taxes" aka conquest 🧐.
@sofia no, just pay them.
@paniq i think viewing paxes as investment indicates a pretty unheathy idea of being governed.
well, i don't want a beef with you. i love a lot of your music. but i could give you some anarchist reading recs, if you want. :3
@sofia passionate anarchists yet have to explain to me how garbage disposal works in an anarchic society. every time we get to that point, it gets real quiet.
@sofia personally it is my opinion that democracy _is_ anarchy in the strictest sense - no king, right? we're all doing this ourselves. so if you put a vacuum where the government was, you'd just create another one, by the bug reports and feature requests that invariably crop up.
@paniq anarchy isn't just a-monarchy. even the "purest" democracy would have has a ruling class, it would just be the majority ruling over the minority. in actually existing democracy it's pretty easy to tell who is the ruling class because they have legal privileges. think what a policeman may be allowed to do to you for disobeying, and what' left of your usual right to self-defense.
(1/3)
@paniq i do not think that opression is a constant. when societies decided that women shouldn't be subjugated to men, this didn't make a new equal opression pop up somewhere else. on the contrary, it gave arguments and strategies for coming waves of liberation.
(2/3)
@sofia not sure why you equate management with opression. the two things are not the same.
@paniq i did not. people are should be free to delegate tasks. including managerial ones. but it's a very different thing to offer people advice or managerial help or to decide that people need "management" even if they don't consent to it.
the core idea of anarchism is that social relations should be built on consent, not coercion.
@sofia you will be shocked to learn that every child coming into this world can not consent to any form of organization it is born into, be it a a family, a cult, a company, a cooperative, etc., and that org may not grant them the right to opt out
@paniq can you please turn down the condescension a bit? i know people can get defensive when things they take for granted get questioned, but please try to not take it personal.
you're not very familiar with anarchism, that's fine. i'm happy to explore this with you, including critical questions and any weaknesses we may find.
i've spend a lot of time writing these replies today (i write pretty slowly). and i'm gonna go for walkies for a bit.
@sofia please forgive me my derisive prodding which was meant in good faith, but i will not do that again. i am still expecting a response to the non-consenting child conundrum.
@paniq thanks for the apology 🙂. i'll be back in 1.5 hours or so. if you want you may think of about what my reply might be? make some guesses?
you don't have to, but maybe it's a fun exercise and i'm kinda curious what your guesses may be.
cya!
@sofia i expect you to respond that every organization should give its members the opportunity to opt out at the age of consent.
@paniq well that's sort of the gist of it. i think people have the right to opt out of pretty much anything.
as for an age of consent, that seems mostly a question for things that you are allowed to opt into. and i think it makes sense to have more than 2 age/maturity categories for different things to opt into. but on the other hand i don't expect that there will be total global consensus of where the lines are.
@sofia how would you enforce this rule?
@paniq any rule/law needs a moderate amount of social consensus behind it. if you see someone's right violated, you have the right and perhaps duty to defend them and minimize the overall violence.
i think there would also tend to be security organisations who may specialize in defending people. they don't have any special rights, but special training and presumably some recognition for that.
@sofia what is the difference between the people doing this security job and, say, the people working in a sheriff's office?
@paniq well, i'm not super familiar with the sheriff system, but generally police have special legal privileges. you aren't allowed to resist them, let alone defend yourself. the have broad legal immunity and are allowed to can attack you for non-aggressive acts ("victimless crimes"). details vary based on legislation, of course.
they also usually have no competition, so many people may support a terrible police force, because it's arguably better than nothing (for them).
@paniq security orgs may come in conflict with each other (just as people only trying to defend themselves). but they couldn't easily externalize their costs. and as a customer or worker, you most likely wanted to choose a security org (again, i'd prefer coops) that avoids getting into shuffles, and can cooperate well with others to deescalate the situation.
with warfare between states, the situation is very different, of course.