Nooo lining up toy soldiers and wasting everyone's time is good when the more effective government does it.
naevaTheRat
Don't gell-mann yourself.
If it spits out plausible looking but incorrect things you notice with high frequency, how much do you not notice?
Haha fucking idiot clankerwanker.
These machines generate plausible text. That's all.
This is a contradiction. Nobody is in command unless there is violence to back up orders.
How can you lose benefits unless someone takes them. Ok I stop listening, unless someone comes and forcibly disconnects my plumbing it sounds like I still get to use it. Unless someone forced a firefighter not to extinguish a burning house of a "non citizen" it seems like they'll probably just do it anyway.
In what way is this a state?
Concretely spell out the difference between this an people self organising horizontally.
I don't understand how you envisage things like money or a company existing without the threat of violence to back them up.
Like ok, you run an election. I think your dogshit party sucks and I don't listen to them. What happens to me?
It's not clear to me that this isn't contradictory.
In what way would that be a country assuming you mean this synonymous to state?
If it doesn't have the capacity or will for coercive violence what stops it being anarchy in practice? Who enforces borders? Who stops people redistributing wealth? who makes people work in hierarchical structures?
If everyone is constantly reaffirming their voluntary association with each other by participation in a collectively decided social structure that is in fact anarchy.
If the "community policing" is violence at the will of an elite then what stops them from reestablishing a state?
In part. States have a lot of trouble understanding anything that isn't as centralised as a state. Consequently state militaries and intelligence agencies are highly specialised towards attacking these targets and going after the infrastructure they depend on.
When confronted by more horizontally organised structures they tend to get drawn into situations that become long drawn out guerrilla wars. Or playing whackamole with insurgency cells.
I didn't think I was saying anything new, just that it's a practical problem that needs solving.
What are you talking about? The only currently extant anarchish communities are in places where states are weak. Anarchists in places with highly centralised states tend to get attacked by everyone, and that's a serious problem you can't just vibes away.
Wars, even ones you win, are a tremendous drain. States tend to suck at fighting non states, but that doesn't mean it's conducive to human flourishing for the non state people. States are also moronically optimistic about their ability to "productively" war.
This isn't some fringe concern. There's any number of proposals you can read on anarchists library about how to deal with this.
It has nothing to do with being failed. If you wanted to start a democratic collective in manorialist times then yes, figuring out how not to get invaded was very important.
Hmph, nice try. However I have already depicted you as a tank and me as the tank man.
They're 3 Australian guys from Adelaide.