832
No Kings! (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)

No system can achieve consensus consent of the governed. All governments maintain authority through a monopoly on violence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    No systems that rely on and encourage centralization and concentration. Systems exist. They don't educate us about them purposefully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Show me literally one ever.

    Any government relies on a monopoly of violence, because some minority will not consent to rule. Lenient systems will settle towards "don't kill, cook, and eat your neighbors," some will settle towards total subjugation of their constituents.

    If not prevented with violence, new violent power structures will form spontaneously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Too easy. Any anarchistic structure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    What "anarchistic structure" has derived authority exclusively through consent, and done so without allowing other violent power structures to form?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Unless you can tell me of any structure that has succeeded in that. That is an irrelevant question

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "allow" as in permit or not address... Obviously no structure is 100% successful at eliminating opposition, but without the monopoly of violence any government becomes usurped by another body that is willing to exert force.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    No one should have a monopoly of anything beyond their own person/labor/property. Much less violence. Jesus Christ, you're literally arguing for most of the issues with modern systems unironically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Anarchism doesn't mean the absence of force.

    Just as tolerance cannot exist if those who are intolerant are tolerated. Those who violate the similar social agreement to consent. Forgo consent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you're going to motte and Bailey, try not to do it in one conversation. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    So a bunch of mental gymnastics later, we have two groups: those who consent to authority, and those who comply with authority because of the threat or application of violence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I see. So you worked yourself into a corner and don't know where to go from here. So our claiming a fallacy. Gotcha. Honestly I didn't ever think you're really engaging in good faith anyhow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent