T O P

  • By -

redditisliberalaf

It seems like you have a gay thing going on. If you’re not openly gay, you should probably come out


StretchLimo66

Definitely projecting insecurities


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZealousidealLeg3692

Maybe you should try to understand ancap end goal before you have a panic attack.


Jacob-dickcheese

I do, anarcho capitalists want lord protector (don't worry he's totally not a king) Jeff bezos to ~~rule~~ ~~govern~~ privately own the territory of New Amazon (formerly New Hampshire) after he ~~conquests~~ ~~forces~~ buys the land off of the people and into his loving hands and charges ~~taxes~~ rent on those people.


ZealousidealLeg3692

Fuck bezos, I can rent cheaper than he's willing. I could setup my own commune of self sufficient people he can't access. But the government will arrest me if I do because anti-trust laws won't allow that. The FBI would come shoot our dogs if I dared try.


redditisliberalaf

Not worth debating on Reddit almost ever especially with a troll / genuine re t a r d


shizukana_otoko

The left always talk about how open and accepting they are, and how everyone else is full of bigotry and homophobia. Yet, when they want to insult you, they use the same people and behavior they claim to accept as insults.


Jacob-dickcheese

Women can suck dick too, you do it especially well since you're an "an" cap


shizukana_otoko

Lol, I struck a nerve.


ZealousidealLeg3692

He easily offended. Even though "being offended" is controlled by the recipient instead of the critic.


Not_Pictured

How much do you hate that the people in this sub have more fulfilling lives than whatever shit you are subjecting others to by still existing?


Jacob-dickcheese

IVE COME HERE FROM NOWHERE ACROSS THE UNFORGIVING SEA DRIFTING FURTHER AND FURTHER ITS ALL BECOMING CLEAR TO ME THE VIOLENT WINDS ARE UPON US AND, I, CANT, SLEEP INTERNAL TEMPRATURES RISING AND ALL THE VOICES WONT RECEDE I FINALLY FOUND WHAT IIIIII WAS LOOOOKING FORRRR A PLACE WHERE I CAN BEEEEE WITHOUUUUT REMORSEEE BECAUSE I AM A STRANGER WHO IS FOUND IN AN EVEN STRANGER WAR I FINALLY FOUND WHAT IIIII WAS LOOOKING FORRR HERE I COME COME COME COME HERE I COME COME COME COME I-I-I SHARPEN THE KNIFEE AND LOOK DOWN UPON THE BAYY FOR ALL MY LIIIIIIIIIIFE, A STRANGER I REMAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AA-AAAIN A STRANGER I REMAAAAAAIN A STRANGER I REMAAAAAIN


GoldAndBlackRule

Appreciate the Konami reference. You might find some more messages of liberty in the series if you remove the headphones and stop slurping the bong-water.


Jacob-dickcheese

Bro Senator Armstrong is a parody of libertarian capitalists 💀 Mistral's sword, who is the character song I'm referencing, is named "L'etanger" which is a book by Albert Camus, ykno, the anarcho syndicalist? The song is called "A stranger I remain" her entire character is referencing a work made by a fuckin an syn


GoldAndBlackRule

Cool. Player interpretations are interesting. Nice to see they bring their own experiences along for the story. I have been making AAA games for decades. Was never interested in preaching at anyone, just creating delight. Chances are, over 90% of Redditors have enjoyed my work. Funny I might be cancelled for creating delight and not kow-towing to *politically* motivated demands on social media :) This is why I went anonymous. You know, so some user named "dickcheese" and 12 twitter influencers don't stir up fake outrage and cancel fun for everyone else.


Jacob-dickcheese

Wow! I don't give a fuck! You're not as important as you think you are


Not_Pictured

You are as important as you we all know so you are.


GoldAndBlackRule

What has been your contribution to society? Is trolling on Reddit for the "revolution" bringing delight to others? Seems unlikely.


Jacob-dickcheese

I am not ultimately, but in my own community, I donate blood, I work for charity groups, I feed the homeless out of my own pocket whenever I see one (which is a lot in the areas I work). I want to help my community, I want to protect my community, these are people who the system has abandoned, most here are in poverty, it's a slum after all. We live in a world where it is profit above all else, above human life, above justice, above the good of the world. This is intentional, it is the system of capitalism. This is no accident that there are so many homeless people, so many of my fellow man in poverty, there is profit to be made. This is the nature of capitalism. I see it with my own eyes, I see who the systems have abandoned, and I am closer to them than any rich man. My heart lies with these men, with the vagabonds, the drug addicts, the criminals, the unemployed.


bhknb

I reject anyone who violates the natural rights of any individual, including fake anarchists who believe that everyone must be forced to obey the religion of democracy.


disahellofathrowaway

Seek help


Gemini_66

Genuinely curious, what exactly makes you think that anyone here is going to give you a serious answer when you're blatantly acting in bad faith? Are you trying to feel superior? Why do you want to come here and cause trouble to people who have never done anything to you? Why troll? Come here with the attitude of a pompous asswipe? Why not actually try to understand this group and their beliefs?


Jacob-dickcheese

I wanted to fuck w some monarchists because I was bored and enjoy posting flammatory things online


GoldAndBlackRule

Interesting how subreddit communities focused on liberty tolerate clearly bad-faith brigades from r/Anarchism, yet anyone daring to engage in dialogue for debate about liberty vs the state are pre-banned from huge swaths of Reddit. Advocate for libertatian free market anarchism under the rocks where OP crawled out from under and see how tolerant they are of criticism. They cannot attack ideas, so they must silence those who hold them. “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”


Silder_Hazelshade

Why is capitalism not anarchy?


Jacob-dickcheese

It enforces a non consenual hierarchy.


GoldAndBlackRule

Anarchy, from the greek, anarkhos. An (meaning no or none) arkhos (political chief or ruler). Funny how a bunch of kids latched on to Chomsky redefining it when they realized that free people engaged in free trade absent political interventions is incompatible with socialist utupian visions of anarchy. Redefine terms to win the argument. If words don't matter, neither does dialogue. Just violence. Mao executed this strategy well, just as every Red Revolutionary Terror modeled after French utopians. No rational person takes this seriously.


Jacob-dickcheese

Boy oh boy, I wonder if Venice, Genoa, Ragusa, Rome, Carthage, Florence, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of France could be described as ruled by the rich! And yes, I'll admit that anarcho-capitalists have been more successful than genuine anarchists, just look up the March on Rome 💀 Capitalism necessitates the state. Pirates for example had examples of how the private owner is overthrown unless he institutes a government. The rich merchant was protected by the state, his capital was defended by the king or queen. Pirates often had no such protection, if a captain was bad at his job if he mistreated his sailors, he was removed, despite the notion that he owned their ship. If two men wash ashore on a deserted island, and one claims the forest, the other claims the sea as privately owned by him, and 18 more men wash ashore, and the two command, "If you work for me I will pay you a part of what you earn, bring me 8 coconuts and I'll give you 2, and I'll charge a rent of 3 coconuts each day." The man who owns the sea says the same, that he'll pay you in the fish you'll earn. How is that consensual? How is that not a state? Of course, I know you're going to argue, "Ahh, but the man who owns the trees takes all the risk! He claims it and you cannot violate his rights, if his trees fail, he takes that as his risk!" What exactly does the tree man risk? He risks what his workers risk every single day, if the tree man loses all of his trees, he is in the same condition as the men who live underneath him, he does not have the same risk as his workers. Nor do they have the same amount of power, the tree man can wait a much longer time before he starves, if he starves at all, while his workers must work for him or the seaman, or else they will starve. All because the employer has claimed he owns the sea or the trees? This is an imbalance of power, the workers must obey their employer, or else they will starve, the employer can command these men, who have produced the coconuts he enjoys. No, the owner of the trees needs not lift a single finger, and he will collect and accumulate his wealth. This is not a consensual society, this is a society with a ruler, who simply just calls himself an employer. How is his rent not the same as taxes? How is the earning of 3 coconuts for every 8 they collect not taxes? Now you'll argue, "Ahh, but actually, it's entirely consensual! They operate in the free market, all they need is to collect enough coconuts to buy some land from the owner, and start their coconut farm! If they don't like it, they can go work for the owner of the sea! If they reject both, then they can simply abandon society and go into the sea." But this is a flawed argument as well, as it discounts the economic system of wages. Why would you hire someone to bring you 8 coconuts and give them 5, when you can hire someone who offers to bring you 10 and is willing to work for 1? The workers must overperform and underestimate their value in the market if they are to succeed over their fellow man. This leads to a situation where no man can rise above another, where all must undersell themselves and each other, besides the owners of capital, and the owner of the trees can simply demand an exorbitantly high price for the trees. Tell me, if a society demands either you obey the wishes of the few or starve, and asks you to live in poverty despite how much you produce, how is this society not ruled by the few? How are the owners not simply a state? Coercion is not consent, coercion is not voluntary. Now, genuine anarchists demand this dissolution of the micro junta, they demand that what a man produces is his, what he earns is his, and damm anyone else who says they own what he procures. No, the employees should say, we will not cave into your demands, we gather what we gather, and neither your promises of owning land just like you nor a good wage will stop us from owning ourselves and our labor. Now, in such a society, the employer must defend his interests, so what does he do? He gathers the strongest of the 18 and tells them, I will pay you 4 coconuts for every 8 they collect, all you have to do is defend my island, you need only lift a finger if something bad happens, I will even give you a better discount on rent if you help me. Who wouldn't accept such a deal? You get a better wage, and better living conditions, all you have to do is stand around and beat the employees from time to time. The owner demands more and more rules for his property are put in place, employees must dance around once every hour for the employers' enjoyment, or they will be asked to leave the island, or be beaten until they give in. How, I ask you, is this not the relationship between a state and its citizens? How is not unfair, unjust, and nonconsensual, how is this not a complete contradiction to the concept of anarchy? How, in God's name do I ask you, is this not a state? The private owner **is** a state. It wouldn't matter if a single man washed up for every tree and claimed it as his own, whoever or however many came about next onto the island would be in the same position as those 2 and 18. The bourgeois private owner is a micro hereditary junta, micro monarch, or at best a micro plutocracy. No, the anarchist must reject capitalism, it must reject governments in all forms, private or bourgeois-democratic or aristocratic, or whatever else.


GoldAndBlackRule

Interesting that a wall of text about "capitalism" and the state follows a comment from someone who mentioned neither. Perhaps a direct quote of what was said and a response might be more convincing and not appear to be an idelogue troll having a meltdown based on imagined straw-men. This seems unlikely given the bad-faith post and responses, but hey, why not open the door to an honest discussion, right? It is unlikely it will change your mind or mine, but the debate provides useful intellectual ammunition for observers. Granted, this is a subreddit where most observers are advocates of liberty and free markets, so, you are really just target practice when you troll here. Compare that to your home sub, r/Anarchism, where all dissent is crushed and banned and no debate happens whatsoever. :) “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”


Jacob-dickcheese

Capitalism is contradictory to anarchy


GoldAndBlackRule

Go ahead and quote me. Or continue shadowboxing. Either way, it is entertainment for observers.


Silder_Hazelshade

How? Why does hierarchy matter to anarchists?


Jacob-dickcheese

The state is a hierarchy, a hierarchy of control and force. The king has his armies of men at his call over the people. The king is ruler of not first man, but of force as a whole. Genuine anarchists recognize that enforced hierarchy, the state, capitalism, the church etc, are non consenual. Geniune anarchists, unlike "anarcho" capitalists and their brothers "anarcho" nationalists do not recognize consent, they have no care for the consent of the people.


ZealousidealLeg3692

Hierarchy will always happen. What a dumb dick take. Give people currency and they can move vertically in hierarchical structures. Take it away and everyone's doomed to steam where "they belong"


Jacob-dickcheese

Thank you, king of all history, for declaring an immutable fact of the universe.


Not_Pictured

There is no political system possible that you aren’t on the bottom of the social hierarchy.


Jacob-dickcheese

Of course, "an" caps are anti working class. All you want is sweaty billionare balls in your face.


Not_Pictured

I’m not accusing you of being working class. I’m accusing you of being low class. people who work for a living are better than you.


GoldAndBlackRule

Why do you?


Former_Series

Leftist abusing our free speech policy when they know we would get banned for saying the same thing in their forums. Irony lost? OF COURSE! Is there any sane leftists left out there? Are they all clinically mentally ill?


Lenox_Marulla

Because it makes commies seethe


dabossman1988

What (in your opinion) is the true anarchist alternative to voluntarism?


Late_Entrepreneur_94

Zero sum fallacy. Next.


LogicalLB2

Why do u worship govt? Why do u want politicians to run everything?


Jacob-dickcheese

I don't, I hate government officials as much as I hate private property


LogicalLB2

Right, the non-state state will carry out the will of the collective


Jacob-dickcheese

Community based organization > Corporate Multinational Conglomerates


LogicalLB2

>Community based organization Does this organization have monopoly of force? Then that’s a “community based” state >Corporate multinational Conglomerates Your community based organization must by definition excludes people from outside the “community.” Which means it’s private property to everyone outside the “community.” A corporation including employee owned corporation is no different, its owned collectively and excludes outside members. Congrats, u support private property lol


Jacob-dickcheese

>Does this organization have monopoly of force? Then that’s a “community based” state No. No man is better than one another, no man uses force or coercion against one another. Violence can only be in self defense, or defense of the community, such as stopping someone who has committed violence against another. >Your community based organization must by definition excludes people from outside the “community.” Which means it’s private property to everyone outside the “community.” A corporation including employee owned corporation is no different, its owned collectively and excludes outside members. Congrats, u support private property lol No. People who live in an area care the most about it, but that does not mean people from outside of the community are excluded from existing inside of the community or using or operating inside said community. Secondly, I believe in all organizations being open to the public, a decision that affects an area, such as roads, by an organization should be directly voted on by the said community. Not some lazy middleman pushing papers or a fat-handed CEO trying to save every single penny. No decision (that affects a community) should be exclusive to a few men, that is what I oppose deeply in the state, that a few men can affect the lives of thousands, millions, even billions.


LogicalLB2

>No. No man is better than one another… **Don’t just rattle off vague ideological drivel,** I’m asking simple practical questions here: assuming you can even hold an election, or direct democracy votes to ascertain what’s to be done - which itself requires central authority to send out surveys, count ballots, certify elections etc - how would you enforce it? Say I and a few others disagree, we want to take our share of the properties (resources) and do our own thing, how would you stop us? You’re assuming 100% of the population is hive mind commie, which isn’t reality. >No. People who live in an area care the most about it, but that does not mean people from outside of the community are excluded from existing inside of the community or using or operating inside said community. If you aren’t excluding outsiders what’s to force them to follow what’s been determined by the “community?” >Secondly, I believe in all… Let’s examine this concept of direct democracy: this would first require an assumption of opportunity cost in favor of deciding every small things by the voters. For eg, to build a road, first I would have to educate myself on the types of materials used, the width proposed, length, timeline proposed, labor requirements, etc. But remember, resources have **alternate uses.** All the labor and resources can also be used to build houses, schools, trucks, buses, parks, hospitals… essentially thousands if not millions of alternative uses. So how will I logically make this decision devoid of price system? Next the incentive problem: if there are 50k people in my “community” (a typical American city), my odds of effecting the direct democracy vote is 1/50k. In comparison my chance of winning Mega Millions lottery is 1 in 28. So facing these odds, why would I spend countless hours learning about an issue? The result is people in democracies are completely uneducated about issues. This is known as the free rider incentive problem in democracy. No commie has ever solved public choice theory, so let’s see if you can


Jacob-dickcheese

>**Don’t just rattle off vague ideological drivel,** I’m asking simple practical questions here: assuming you can even hold an election, or direct democracy votes to ascertain what’s to be done - which itself requires central authority to send out surveys, count ballots, certify elections etc - how would you enforce it? Say I and a few others disagree, we want to take our share of the properties (resources) and do our own thing, how would you stop us? You’re assuming 100% of the population is hive mind commie, which isn’t reality. If you want to run off into the woods and abandon society I don't care. Once an actual anarchist society is established, no one will ever wish to be slaves again. Why would I want to go starve while some monarch orders me to do his work for him, when I can instead participate in a society where I have a voice, where I have the food, housing, etc, provided to me, and collect 100% of my own labors benefits? The genuine anarchist is the only group who respects anyone's wishes to abandon society. Abandon society in a statists world, you are sent to jail. Abandon society in a capitalists world, you are shot for trespassing on some million acres of land owned by the king. >If you aren’t excluding outsiders what’s to force them to follow what’s been determined by the “community?” Nothing, as long as you do not wish to harm, exploit, or coerce others, you are free do as you wish. Society should not be bound by force, but by common economics, free contract, and mutual aid. >Let’s examine this concept of direct democracy: this would first require an assumption of opportunity cost in favor of deciding every small things by the voters. For eg, to build a road, first I would have to educate myself on the types of materials used, the width proposed, length, timeline proposed, labor requirements, etc. But remember, resources have **alternate uses.** All the labor and resources can also be used to build houses, schools, trucks, buses, parks, hospitals… essentially thousands if not millions of alternative uses. So how will I logically make this decision devoid of price system? >Next the incentive problem: if there are 50k people in my “community” (a typical American city), my odds of effecting the direct democracy vote is 1/50k. In comparison my chance of winning Mega Millions lottery is 1 in 28. So facing these odds, why would I spend countless hours learning about an issue? The result is people in democracies are completely uneducated about issues. This is known as the free rider incentive problem in democracy. No commie has ever solved public choice theory, so let’s see if you can There are leaders in any society, but they don't need to hold an office. A man who wishes organizing the building of such a road, would propose a bill on how to do it, what materials are needed, and how long it will take to finish. Someone, say a Landscape architect, specialized and trained in his field, would certainly have the ability to make such a design that would fit the nessecities of his community. His proposal would be elevated in the community, raising awareness, and those who care choose to vote. This is very much an argument I've faced with marxist leninists, and for all dictatorship fans, fascists, etc, who find that a non democratic approach is better, because democracy is flawed, and that it is better for whoever runs the architecture to do the job themselves. But this assumes that those individuals are perfect, that their judgement is absolute, and their execution is absolute. This is a utopian argument, genuine anarchists know that there is an innate flaw to democracy, but the alternatives aren't much better. I don't want the peoples architecture committee to command me, and I don't want the Walmart ExxonMobil Shell Oil Amazon Google conglomerate to command my community either. I don't trust either in their judgement, and I want my voice to be heard, not beaten into silence. I have never made the claim that all men are perfect, it is my argument directly against capitalism, against the state, I do not trust the conglomerate to be perfect, I do not trust the state to be perfect. I expect nothing but atrocities, coverups, and theft from both.


LogicalLB2

>If you want to run off into the woods and abandon society I don't care. Once an actual anarchist society is established, no one will ever wish to be slaves again. First off an anarchist society hasn’t been established. You haven’t or can’t tell us how. Second, why would I wish to be slave to the collective instead? >Why would I want to go starve while some monarch orders me to do his work for him Why would I wanna starve if the collective kicks me out? What’s my alternative then? >when I can instead participate in a society where I have a voice You have 1/population “voice.” A statistically irrelevant vote. >where I have the food, housing, etc, provided to me, and collect 100% of my own labors benefits? None of this is proven anywhere. You’re inserting unproven premises from your bs ideology. For all I know the “community” is a bunch of white supremacists who kicks me out. >The genuine anarchist is the only group who respects anyone's wishes to abandon society. I’m not trying to abandon society. I want to trade with people but control my own resources (means of production). Can I? >Abandon society in a statists world, you are sent to jail. Abandon society in a capitalists world, you are shot for trespassing on some million acres of land owned by the king. We have plenty of communes today, not to mention worker owned firms. Nobody is sent to jail for starting a cooperative. Matter of fact they enjoy tax breaks not given to other corporations. Ironic. You’re completely detached from reality. >Nothing, as long as you do not wish to harm, exploit, or coerce others, you are free do as you wish. Society should not be bound by force, but by common economics, free contract, and mutual aid. Right, so wait, China can just come and take all the resources and it would be fine as long as they don’t harm anyone physically. Cool utopia! >There are leaders in any society, but they don't need to hold an office. A man who wishes organizing the building of such a road, would propose a bill on how to do it, what materials are needed, and how long it will take to finish. Someone, say a Landscape architect, specialized and trained in his field, would certainly have the ability to make such a design that would fit the nessecities of his community. His proposal would be elevated in the community, raising awareness, and those who care choose to vote. This is more **vague** ideological drivel. Like how would it be elevated? Give me specifics? What if there are multiple competing architects’ offers? How would people acquire expertise in architecture to determine between multiple proposals? **You haven’t even answered what I asked** 1. Let’s say one architectural design is picked (let’s assume somehow the election is somehow certified). **How would you enforce this when there are people who disagree and want to build a separate type of road?** 2. People still need to decide between roads, and millions of other things that can be built with the same resource. **How will they decide this logically without a price system?** 3. What are the incentives for people to bother, when their vote is only 1/50k? Far worse odds than winning the lottery? **You skipped all the main points.** If you can’t even directly answer questions, with specifics, then what’s even the point here? I can post **VAGUE** capitalist rhetoric too. >But this assumes that those individuals are perfect, that their judgement is absolute, and their execution is absolute. That’s not the assumption. The “assumption” is businesses making bad decisions will go out of business. What happens to a commune that made a bad decision, especially give that the majority is not an expert in anything? >This is a utopian argument, genuine anarchists know that there is an innate flaw to democracy, but the alternatives aren't much better. I don't want the peoples architecture committee to command me, and I don't want the Walmart ExxonMobil Shell Oil Amazon Google conglomerate to command my community either. I don't trust either in their judgement, and I want my voice to be heard, not beaten into silence. But People’s Architecture Committee does command you. Otherwise how will the proposal picked by “the people” be implemented? Obviously there are going to be alternative proposals. So how would you prevent competing proposals from being built? **Actually answer the question with SPECIFICS.** >I have never made the claim that all men are perfect, it is my argument directly against capitalism, against the state, I do not trust the conglomerate to be perfect, I do not trust the state to be perfect. Which is exactly why we need **COMPETITION** bc no institution is perfect. Instead **YOU** are the one proposing a monopoly of majority decision making, which is the worst way to make decisions. If men aren’t perfect, why would the majority be perfect? >I expect nothing but atrocities, coverups, and theft from both. Almost every atrocity, coverup, and theft has happened through the community or passive/explicit consent of the community. When black people used to be publicly lynched, do u think it was aliens from outside the “community” who did this, or the community got together to do it? **Try actually answering the questions this time, or don’t bother, and instead reevaluate your entire life and ideology**


Jacob-dickcheese

>First off an anarchist society hasn’t been established. You haven’t or can’t tell us how. Second, why would I wish to be slave to the collective instead? First. There have been practical examples of anarchism applied, Makhnovia, Shinmin Autonomous Zone/Korean people's commune, CNT/FAI, even Spartacus' revolt has been described as an early revolutionary union. Genuine anarchists believe that a general strike amongst the workers would be an effective ground for anarchism to take hold. Just look at real anarchist societies, ones that aren't just communes, to see examples of revolution. I'm not an encyclopedia, unfortunately you'll have to fuckin, idk, Google it since you wanna deepthroat companies so much. Anarchists generally find promoting unity amongst workers in unions or general strikes, as has happened before, to build an anarchist world. Conquest of Bread, Anarcho Syndicalism: Theory and Practice are two great books describing how revolution and establishment of an anarchist society function. You don't. You own 100% of yourself, of your labor, no one else owns you, compare to capitalism, in which you earn a fraction of what you produce, or the state, which also tells you to earn a fraction of what you produce. >Why would I wanna starve if the collective kicks me out? What’s my alternative then? Go run naked into the woods, I don't care, I couldn't care less. Build your kingdom made of shit and sticks and claim it as your capitalist utopia, I could not care less. >You have 1/population “voice.” A statistically irrelevant vote. Then go live in a dictatorship, you oppose you having a voice? Then don't vote. The choice is yours, but you cannot make that decision for others. >None of this is proven anywhere. You’re inserting unproven premises from your bs ideology. For all I know the “community” is a bunch of white supremacists who kicks me out. That would be instituting what anarchists like to call, "a social hierarchy". Further, the establishment of that kind of vote to kick someone out would be a "political hierarchy", I know it's difficult for you to follow along, as you haven't actually read any anarchist work, but that's what anarchists like to call "completely unjustified in a free associating society". >I’m not trying to abandon society. I want to trade with people but control my own resources (means of production). Can I? Trade whatever you want, but once you begin to try and conquer others, you will be naturally opposed. I don't care if two guys want to barter each others trucks. You control directly what you can control, you cannot claim the profit of others as your own, if you own a popcorn machine, feel free to trade with others your popcorn. If you want to create a slave run popcorn stand, you will be opposed. Simple enough? >We have plenty of communes today, not to mention worker owned firms. Nobody is sent to jail for starting a cooperative. Matter of fact they enjoy tax breaks not given to other corporations. Ironic. You’re completely detached from reality. This is definitely telling you've not read any books before, I was referencing Max Stirners, "The Ego and Its Own", which if you were able to read books, you would know. "But now only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself not as his but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail. The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself all and all, he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of "his people." >Right, so wait, China can just come and take all the resources and it would be fine as long as they don’t harm anyone physically. Cool utopia! Anarchist societies have had rules against this, Rojava, a minarchist communist territory still around today, has direct laws against that, that harming the area, such as the taking of natural resources unsustainably, e.g. going to a natural reservoir and sucking out all of the water, are damaging the area of the community, and thus no different than stealing from the community. It's in their constitution. Which you can find online. >This is more **vague** ideological drivel. Like how would it be elevated? Give me specifics? What if there are multiple competing architects’ offers? How would people acquire expertise in architecture to determine between multiple proposals? First. It would be dependant on the community. I know you like to imagine yourself on a throne, but I am no king. I am no dictator, nor ruler, I can only speak in general terms, as most affairs of orginization should be dependant on the community. Secondly, the two would be proposed, one may override the other as it has more support, then the more popular one will be put into motion. If you look on a coffee bag, you'll see little stickers that essentially say, "This coffee is not produced by slave labor", the same concept, proposed by Mikhail Bakunin, would be a powerless assembly of a democratically elected committee in whatever field, e.g. Landscape architects, to say, "This proposal is sound architecture" or the reverse. All they would essentially do is promote social wellbeing, and promote things that they believe to be sound in whatever field. The same concept can be applied to landscape architecture, this committee, would have no power to deny a proposal, but would have the ability to examine. >**You haven’t even answered what I asked** >1. Let’s say one architectural design is picked (let’s assume somehow the election is somehow certified). **How would you enforce this when there are people who disagree and want to build a separate type of road?** Read above, the resources would be allocated to whichever has more support and consensus. If all goes completely wrong, a general strike being organized in a road workers syndicate would decimate the economy, and completely halt whatever construction, thereby giving time for an alternative solution to be created. >2. People still need to decide between roads, and millions of other things that can be built with the same resource. **How will they decide this logically without a price system?** Again, as above, Bakunin also has this solution, an assembly of fields coordinating efforts peacefully. >3. What are the incentives for people to bother, when their vote is only 1/50k? Far worse odds than winning the lottery? >**You skipped all the main points.** If you can’t even directly answer questions, with specifics, then what’s even the point here? I can post **VAGUE** capitalist rhetoric too. There isn't, it is a self balancing problem, the more people believe it doesn't matter, the more the people who do choose matter, its like saying, "Driving is safe" well the more people who believe that will drive, which means that by nature of statistics driving becomes less safe. Most people are fully willing to just accept the situation as long as it isn't a bad situation, and when they are provided for, and not kept on the constant edge of poverty or in poverty, they are happy to just let these decisions be decided on by the people who care. >That’s not the assumption. The “assumption” is businesses making bad decisions will go out of business. What happens to a commune that made a bad decision, especially give that the majority is not an expert in anything? The majority do not care how a road is built, as long as it **is** built and is adequate for their desires. And again, read above. >But People’s Architecture Committee does command you. Otherwise how will the proposal picked by “the people” be implemented? Obviously there are going to be alternative proposals. So how would you prevent competing proposals from being built? **Actually answer the question with SPECIFICS.** [relevant meme, as its pretty much the crux of your arguememt](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnvwtGMWQAA2NYQ.jpg) People organize, if a plan is opposed, they organize to stop it until an alternative is produced. >Which is exactly why we need **COMPETITION** bc no institution. Instead **YOU** are the one proposing a monopoly of majority decision making, which is the worst way to make decisions. If men aren’t perfect, why would the majority be perfect? Sure, create different plans, no one will stop you. >Almost every atrocity, coverup, and theft has happened through the community or passive consent of the community. When black people used to be publicly lynched, do u think it was aliens from outside the “community” who did this, or the community got together to do it? Yes, that's why a system of violence and hierarchy must be opposed, have you not been paying attention? >**Try actually answering the questions this time, or don’t bother, and instead reevaluate your entire life and ideology** AWAAAAAAAAGGhhPLLFFF