That’s what rules are for. Robert’s rules of order is a good point of reference for it for meetings, and does not require hierarchy.
That’s what I mean when I say “hierarchy” is a slippery term. Robert’s rules don’t function without a president authorized to adjudicate.
You just want to say “it can’t work” and then ignore anything else.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say “it can work” and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague. “Have rules”, not what those rules are or how you enforce them. “Cooperate and make decisions by consensus”, not how that cooperative structure is organized, how it obstructs exploitation, or how such a functional structure differs substantially from existing “hierarchical” structures.
Again, you need councils and stuff, but those can be done without hierarchy. Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That’s all been considered and there are solutions. It’s nothing complicated.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say “it can work” and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn’t an argument against anything other than humanity. I’d argue that anarchism makes it harder for them to establish power, not easier. Trump can just walk in and take power, because we already set it up for him, for example.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague.
No shit it’s obtuse and vague. I’m not writing a constitution here. What do you expect. Hell, even constitutions are obtuse and vague. That’s why the Supreme Court ended up with the power to interpret laws, and why they sometimes disagree. You can never address everything, even when you’re trying to, which I’m not.
You’re arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren’t trying to figure anything out for yourself. There are dozens of competing anarchist views, each with different solutions to different problems. You aren’t so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven’t considered.
Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That’s all been considered and there are solutions. It’s nothing complicated.
Yes, exactly. How is that any different from the existing system where power given is temporary and positions are constantly rotated?
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn’t an argument against anything other than humanity
Yes, exactly. Any system without robust checks and balances is powerless against tyranny. You’ve got it backwards though, anarchy is by far more susceptible to tyranny because checks and balances are ultimately hierarchical. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have spent decades laying the groundwork for their brand of tyranny, and still Trump doesn’t have the power to do everything he wants because the power we set up for him has rules and limitations, checks and balances.
You’re arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren’t trying to figure anything out for yourself.
Untrue. I only asked for the most basic information and you didn’t have anything. I’ve spent a great deal of thought over the last few decades trying to figure these things out for myself, aided by the hundreds of schools of political thought. I’m not saying these things and asking these questions because I couldn’t be bothered to think for myself. I say these things precisely because I’ve figured these things out extensively, and have found this particular class of thought to be desperately lacking.
You aren’t so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven’t considered.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I’ve read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I’ve read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
This comment says enough about this conversation. They make better arguments in your opinion. You think your opinion is everything though.
That’s what I mean when I say “hierarchy” is a slippery term. Robert’s rules don’t function without a president authorized to adjudicate.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say “it can work” and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.
And even what you do address, is obtusely vague. “Have rules”, not what those rules are or how you enforce them. “Cooperate and make decisions by consensus”, not how that cooperative structure is organized, how it obstructs exploitation, or how such a functional structure differs substantially from existing “hierarchical” structures.
Again, you need councils and stuff, but those can be done without hierarchy. Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That’s all been considered and there are solutions. It’s nothing complicated.
Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn’t an argument against anything other than humanity. I’d argue that anarchism makes it harder for them to establish power, not easier. Trump can just walk in and take power, because we already set it up for him, for example.
No shit it’s obtuse and vague. I’m not writing a constitution here. What do you expect. Hell, even constitutions are obtuse and vague. That’s why the Supreme Court ended up with the power to interpret laws, and why they sometimes disagree. You can never address everything, even when you’re trying to, which I’m not.
You’re arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren’t trying to figure anything out for yourself. There are dozens of competing anarchist views, each with different solutions to different problems. You aren’t so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven’t considered.
Yes, exactly. How is that any different from the existing system where power given is temporary and positions are constantly rotated?
Yes, exactly. Any system without robust checks and balances is powerless against tyranny. You’ve got it backwards though, anarchy is by far more susceptible to tyranny because checks and balances are ultimately hierarchical. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have spent decades laying the groundwork for their brand of tyranny, and still Trump doesn’t have the power to do everything he wants because the power we set up for him has rules and limitations, checks and balances.
Untrue. I only asked for the most basic information and you didn’t have anything. I’ve spent a great deal of thought over the last few decades trying to figure these things out for myself, aided by the hundreds of schools of political thought. I’m not saying these things and asking these questions because I couldn’t be bothered to think for myself. I say these things precisely because I’ve figured these things out extensively, and have found this particular class of thought to be desperately lacking.
And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I’ve read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.
This comment says enough about this conversation. They make better arguments in your opinion. You think your opinion is everything though.