(October 20, 2019 at 2:55 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(October 20, 2019 at 7:27 am)no one Wrote: Are you Johnny Rotten?

Never heard of him. Why?

---

(October 20, 2019 at 11:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Why?

Boru

Why do people post stuff on YouTube in general? Because they want people to watch them, for whatever reason. Popular YouTubers generally do that to get some money from monetization or Patreon. But I think getting a credit card or PayPal or whatever systems can be used to make money out people watching my videos isn't worth it, since I get very few views for my YouTube videos right now. It's probably only worth if you are making YouTube videos on a regular basis.

---

(October 20, 2019 at 2:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 1.  I really, REALLY don't think that's an argument people make against anarchism.

2.  I'm really not clear about why you would try to make the case for anarchism in a language very few people understand.  Ok, so you can speak Latin.  Does that somehow make anarchism any less pointless and self-defeating?

Boru

So, what is the argument people make against anarchism? The most common argument is, I guess, that the government prevents crime. I've tried to refute that argument in my video, along with a few other common arguments. And I've received that argument about how anarchists are simply people uneducated in social sciences and liberal arts, as far as I remember, two times on the Internet forums. So, yeah, some people do use that argument.

But do you really think that posting in Latin is going to convince anyone that anarchism is worthwhile?  I'm just not sure what Latin adds to the video.  You'd reach more people if you posted in, for example, French.

Boru

(October 20, 2019 at 2:31 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(October 20, 2019 at 11:23 am)Athene Wrote: Why in Latin?

Well, like I've said in the description, many people say anarchists would stop being anarchists if they had some liberal arts education. Well, that's not true in my case. If I can speak Latin, I am very well educated in liberal arts, don't you think?

Yes, well to to the average YT viewer it will just appear that you can use Google Translate. 

Anarchism is a extraordinarily tough sell because a great number of people are quite convinced that police officers are assigned to function as peace officers, and as a system, most believe that anarchism is devoid of any semblance of structure, principles, or accountability.Thus lending to the notion that anarchism is necessarily violent...very violent. 

I think you would've done better to make a heartier attempt in addressing some of those misconceptions and making a rational case for structured anarchism instead of going out of your way to get a one up on your detractors. Narrating your vid in a dead language really just kind of reinforces the notion of anarchists being hopelessly devoted edgelords. 

Whether that's fair or unfair doesn't matter. It's what will happen in many folk's minds.

Lol...I won't be assigning a letter grade to this vid, as I did with your climate change one. 
It'll just make you mad.

"structured anarchism"

I'm interested in what structure anarchism has. To me anarchism is just the voluntary abolition of government. I don't think of violent connotations although I understand that with the close proximity to the punk movement that some do see it that way. I just think that if we could be successful in disbanding the government that something would rise in its place due to a power vacuum. Thaq wants apples.

(October 20, 2019 at 8:35 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: "structured anarchism"

I'm interested in what structure anarchism has. To me anarchism is just the voluntary abolition of government. I don't think of violent connotations although I understand that with the close proximity to the punk movement that some do see it that way. I just think that if we could be successful in disbanding the government that something would rise in its place due to a power vacuum. Thaq wants apples.

To my understanding, structured anarchism more or less involves self-governance at a community level, which would require a serious degree of personal responsibility and civic-mindedness.
I suppose that community militias could be quite capable of stamping out small/localized power grabs. It seems that handling broader challenges though, would require organization, oversight, and management of resources on a scale that would come remarkably close to resembling.... dare I say....government? Lol.

I can't imagine a nation of multiple anarchist communities fending off a significant foreign threat--at least not with a purist approach to anarchism.

Perhaps I'm just limited in my thinking on the matter though.

(October 20, 2019 at 10:39 pm)Athene Wrote:

(October 20, 2019 at 8:35 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: "structured anarchism"

I'm interested in what structure anarchism has. To me anarchism is just the voluntary abolition of government. I don't think of violent connotations although I understand that with the close proximity to the punk movement that some do see it that way. I just think that if we could be successful in disbanding the government that something would rise in its place due to a power vacuum. Thaq wants apples.

To my understanding, structured anarchism more or less involves self-governance at a community level, which would require a serious degree of personal responsibility and civic-mindedness.
I suppose that community militias could be quite capable of stamping out small/localized power grabs. It seems that handling broader challenges though, would require organization, oversight, and management of resources on a scale that would come remarkably close to resembling.... dare I say....government? Lol.

I can't imagine a nation of multiple anarchist communities fending off a significant foreign threat--at least not with a purist approach to anarchism.

Perhaps I'm just limited in my thinking on the matter though.

How does a community militia stamp out its own power grab?

Anything that can stamp out a power grab can grab power.    Many militia amongst many small self-governing communities would seem a particularly unstable system in which effective power grab anywhere  would have a good chance of quickly snowballing and soon irresistibly subsume all the other communities.

Am I the only one with Holy Grail on the brain now?

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Can we get the video redubbed into Swedish and then back masked?

(October 20, 2019 at 10:49 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(October 20, 2019 at 10:39 pm)Athene Wrote: To my understanding, structured anarchism more or less involves self-governance at a community level, which would require a serious degree of personal responsibility and civic-mindedness.
I suppose that community militias could be quite capable of stamping out small/localized power grabs. It seems that handling broader challenges though, would require organization, oversight, and management of resources on a scale that would come remarkably close to resembling.... dare I say....government? Lol.

I can't imagine a nation of multiple anarchist communities fending off a significant foreign threat--at least not with a purist approach to anarchism.

Perhaps I'm just limited in my thinking on the matter though.

How does a community militia stamp out its own power grab?

Anything that can stamp out a power grab can grab power.

Why would you automatically assume that any and all power grabs would come from a militia, when presumably virtually everyone in society would be armed? 
Seems to me that militia members wouldn't be any more inclined to long for a reestablishment of strict governance than any other group of yahoos--perhaps even less likely. Actually, I would think that militia members would be more likely to value the core principles of anarchy and value "Muh freedom!" more than anyone else.

(October 20, 2019 at 11:13 pm)Athene Wrote:

(October 20, 2019 at 10:49 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: How does a community militia stamp out its own power grab?

Anything that can stamp out a power grab can grab power.

Why would you automatically assume that any and all power grabs would come from a militia, when presumably virtually everyone in society would be armed? 
Seems to me that militia members wouldn't be any more inclined to long for a reestablishment of strict governance than any other group of yahoos--perhaps even less likely. Actually, I would think that militia members would be more likely to value the core principles of anarchy and value "Muh freedom!" more than anyone else.

The whole Everyone being armed, second-amendment-being-protection-against-organized-tyranny is fundamentally laughable.   An armed but relatively untrained and unorganized mob tends to self-eliminate through klutzy fratricide if its arms are called upon.    An organized and even partially trained armed organization would be a match for an unorganized and untrained armed mob many times its own size.

So in the anarchic world, a thinking person with a mind for power grab will focus on creating or coopting the only organized armed body in its community.

(October 20, 2019 at 11:38 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(October 20, 2019 at 11:13 pm)Athene Wrote: Why would you automatically assume that any and all power grabs would come from a militia, when presumably virtually everyone in society would be armed? 
Seems to me that militia members wouldn't be any more inclined to long for a reestablishment of strict governance than any other group of yahoos--perhaps even less likely. Actually, I would think that militia members would be more likely to value the core principles of anarchy and value "Muh freedom!" more than anyone else.

The whole Everyone being armed, second-amendment-being-protection-against-organized-tyranny is fundamentally laughable.

Well, I'm happy that you're amused--But that's not what I was actually suggesting though.

I was responding to your specific claim that any and all attempts to re-establish governance or impose tyranny would be limited to militia members. 
What I was suggesting was that such a threat could come from virtually any group of individuals not on board with the notion of anarchism; Including, but not limited to, staunch conservatives, religious fundamentalists, Marxists, ethno-nationalists, ex-military...Hell, even ordinary folks who may have just miss having a Constitution and flag to pledge allegiance to could conceivably attempt to organize and implement their preferred brand of law and order. And that they would undoubtedly be armed--as most anyone living in an anarchic society would be.

I wasn't making the case for anarchist society being a realistic possibility. I was simply musing on a hypothetical scenario in which such a society would already exist.

Quote:An armed but relatively untrained and unorganized mob tends to self-eliminate through klutzy fratricide if its arms are called upon. An organized and even partially trained armed organization would be a match for an unorganized and untrained armed mob many times its own size.

So in the anarchic world, a thinking person with a mind for power grab will focus on creating or coopting the only organized armed body in its community.

Your assertion hinges on the assumption that everyone with the mind to make a power grab is a thinking person and that thinking people with the mind to make a grab are immune to overestimating their own strengths and capabilities, though. Neither of which is really the case.

So could a thinking person successfully co-opt a militia of anarchist True Believers and bend them to his/her will of reimposing government tyranny? Uh...Sure, I suppose. Lol
It seems far more likely that they would seek to organize a coalition of like-minded individuals and perhaps enlist the aid of some of those ex-military types I mentioned earlier though.