I've Made a Video about Anarchism

[Anomalocaris]

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.

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.

Not everyone who grabs for power will be a thinking person.  In fact most won’t.   But the notion that somehow all the amphibious power hungry types, both thinking and non-thinking, would just miraculous cancel eachother out, and anarchist society will somehow remain free of tyranny, is totally contrary to every historic instances when things began to appear to evolve in that direction.

What will by far be the most likely to happen in a anarchist free for all is most of the ambitious power hungry types will be baffoons and become road kills, as the few most capable of cold observation, cunning stratagem and ruthlessly calculation bubble to the top. Chances are eventually a figure like Napoleon, or Attila the Hun, or Genghis khan, will assert dictatorship after a period of multi-sided civil war,  and from there he will consolidate his position by swallowing up other communities that do not yet have a authority of command and control to rival him.     And it will turn out most of the most laquaciously freedom loving will be the exact ones who will also be the most laquaciously grateful for the stabilizing the glory bestowing tyranny.   Just look at the Republican Party to see how, to those who believe in free for all, how powerful love of freedom sounds, and how worthless it actually turns out to be when put to the test.

[Athene]

---

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.


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.

---

Not everyone who grabs for power will be a thinking person.  In fact most won’t.   But the notion that somehow all the amphibious power hungry types, both thinking and non-thinking, would just miraculous cancel eachother out, and anarchist society will somehow remain free of tyranny, is totally contrary to every historic instances when things began to appear to evolve in that direction.

What will happen in free for all, most of the ambitious will be baffoons and become road kills, as the clearest thinkers, the most capable of cunning stratagem and ruthlessly calculation bubble to the top. Chances are eventually a figure like Napoleon, or Attila the Hun, or Genghis khan, will rise to the top.    And all the most laquaciously freedom loving will turn out to be the most grateful for the tyranny.

Okay, you do remember the part where I said that I couldn't imagine how said society could defeat a broader more surreptitious threat of tyranny without essentially abandoning it's core principles, right?

Lol...I guess not.

So, are you just choosing to ignore that? Or are you just so enamored with seeing your words in font that you can't remember?

[Anomalocaris]

Love my own words in font? Most of my replies have been briefer than yours.

[FlatAssembler]

Ack doesn't like that so Ack gets together with Gack to make sure they have enough force to prevent more apple stealing.

Or, just let everybody get a gun. Everybody having guns probably won't stop mass shootings from happening, but it would stop people from breaking into houses and stealing while people are in houses.

What do you mean by anarchy?
Do you mean freedom from government?

Exactly, I mean freedom from government.

How could the state of freedom from government be maintained?

I don't think this question really needs an answer, unless you specify which threats you think there are to that state of freedom.

How would anarchy handle externalities from production?

As if the government were doing that well? When has in human history government stood up for the animals that need to be killed for people to eat meat? The government is generally making meat less expensive (via the subsidies), rather than more expensive, thus increasing the externalities of the lives and suffering of those animals, yet alone the environmental costs of meat. It also makes nuclear energy more expensive by over-regulating it (nuclear energy is by far the cleanest and the safest form of energy there is, yet it's also the most regulated one), thus increasing the externalities from the less clean sources of energy.

How would anarchy prevent strong gangs (A form of government) from forming?

First of all, strong gangs appear to be forming more often under more repressive governments. Strong gangs were a huge problem in the Middle Ages, when the society was much more policed than it is today. Second, in an anarchy, when there is no restriction on people having weapons, it will be very hard for those gangs to actually enforce their rule.
Then, again, why would they even try to do that? Why would somebody try to have slaves, when he obviously can make more money by starting a business in which people would work for wages, and he gets some profits. He doesn't then need to waste money catching the slaves that escaped.
Sure, there may be some insane person who would try to do that. But why would he then get a support from other people in the society? Assuming, of course, those people weren't indoctrinated in schools to hate economic and social freedoms.

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

I thought it was a well-known thing Google Translate generally produces ungrammatical gibberish when translating to Latin. When translating from Latin to English, it does slightly better, but it's still often not even understandable. In my experience, Google Translate usually produces intelligible (but usually not grammatical) results when translating from Croatian to English, but it produces a lot worse results when translating from English to Croatian.

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.

I think it's quite clear from the English-language memes I've included in the video what is my response to that argument.

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.

And what do you think about my video about atheism?

[Athene]

Love my own words in font?  Most of my replies have been briefer than yours.

It's not about word-count though. It's about what you were saying--how you were engaging.

You seemed to be hell-bent on talking at me instead of talking to me and having a normal, stimulating discussion--Very content to attribute all that "extra" to my words and thoughts as a result of having not read my post in it's entirety--or forgetting what I'd actually written.

When I tried to tell you as much you just forged ahead, arguing a point that I wasn't even in disagreement with you about.

---

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

I thought it was a well-known thing Google Translate generally produces ungrammatical gibberish when translating to Latin. When translating from Latin to English, it does slightly better, but it's still often not even understandable. In my experience, Google Translate usually produces intelligible (but usually not grammatical) results when translating from Croatian to English, but it produces a lot worse results when translating from English to Croatian.

Lol...Okay, fine. Other internet translation tools, then. 
The point is I don't think the average viewer will be particularly impressed with your ability to speak in a language they don't understand or may not even recognize.

I think it's quite clear from the English-language memes I've included in the video what is my response to that argument.

I think people would rather hear more an actual person, instead of having memes flashed at them.
Just a thought.

And what do you think about my video about atheism?

I'm not sure that I've seen it.
Post a link, and I'll check it out if you'd like.

[FlatAssembler]

Other internet translation tools, then.

Other Internet translation tools don't even claim to be able to translate to or from Latin.

The point is I don't think the average viewer will be particularly impressed with your ability to speak in a language they don't understand or may not even recognize.

What do you mean they won't recognize it? It's mentioned in the title of the video.
Do you think the intellectuals would be more impressed with my ability to speak Croatian, rather than with my ability to speak a language in which much of the western philosophy and science was written?

I think people would rather hear more an actual person, instead of having memes flashed at them.

Well, I've seen quite a few YouTube videos made with memes and a person, whose face is not seen, talking in the background. Doesn't actually mean it's a good thing, though.

Post a link, and I'll check it out if you'd like.

I believe this is the link:
https://youtu.be/vtPkRUp7ZIM
When I try to open it over the cellular network, the page just keeps loading and not even showing me the title of the video. So, sorry if I posted a wrong link, I don't have access to a fast Internet right now.

[Rhizomorph13]

Well put Anomalocaris. You're ideas seem to be in accord with my oen of exactly what would happen if government were done away with. The Walking Dead, while fictional, kind of shows what might happen when government breaks down. Lord of the Flies also shows a model of what might happen when even young minds suddenly find themselves without governance. Tribes form; smart tribes develop methods to enhance their ability to sustain themselves like rules, standards, symbols to unify the people, and traditions to name a few things.

To Flatassembler,

Arming the populace just means the gangs that form will be armed.

The biggest threat to the freedom from government is the fact that people have egos.

Pointing out that government doesn't do that well at controlling externalities does nothing to elucidate the method by which an anarchy WOULD control them and is a tu quoque falacy.

Anarchy is an idea that dies in the face of reality. There is no way to maintain that state unless people stay far away from each other. Because when people interact there will be disagreements and those disagreements will eventually necessitate rules at the very least. I live in America; the populace is armed! There are governments within governments here BECAUSE of the firearms!

[Aegon]

You made a video about anarchism in Latin? You're a goddamn living meme.

[Athene]

Post a link, and I'll check it out if you'd like.

I believe this is the link:
https://youtu.be/vtPkRUp7ZIM
When I try to open it over the cellular network, the page just keeps loading and not even showing me the title of the video. So, sorry if I posted a wrong link, I don't have access to a fast Internet right now.

The link works fine for me.
At work now, but  I will watch when I get home later this evening.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I suspect it's going to take more than a meme-filled YouTube video in a language I don't understand to convince me that anarchism is anything more than a childish fantasy.

Boru