I mean, I get it. Anarchy looks so great sometimes. But I like roads and schools and hospitals and firemen; and we need to.elect someone who ensure those persist.

And then it’s down to choosing the least-worst bunch to do that. And that’s how it’s been for decades.

So, ask yourself: is changing out this regime and losing a bit of healthcare and a bit of infrastructure and a bit of other things that make life livable here, is that a reasonable exchange?

If you say yes, I respect you. If you say no, I respect you. But we can’t vote single-issue: we have a choice between leadership packages, and we need to evaluate them as a whole. The yanks lost their election by voting single-issue, and ended up allowing the worst choice ever to win.

So vote carefully.

The dichotomy of anarchy and voting is confusing. Anarchy in context probably means lawlessness. Defining anarchy as lawlessness ignores anarchy as a political philosophy.

Roads, schools, hospitals and fire departments do not require bosses. Anarchy keeps infrastructure without bosses.

Voting puts bosses in place to make decisions. Anarchy prefers consensus building between effected parties.

People deserve to make more decisions in how their lives are run. A lack of respect for laws passed by our bosses is fitting.

Voting for bosses that make laws to chain people who can run their own school or hospital is unnecesary. Vote because it is the extent of power afforded to us now. Concurrently build better systems and power structures like anarchy.