I’m politically agnostic and have moved from a slightly conservative stance to a vastly more progressive stance (european). i still dont get the more niche things like tankies and anarchists at this point but I would like to, without spending 10 hours reading endless manifests (which do have merit, no doubt, but still).

Can someone explain to me why anarchy isnt the guy (or gal, or gang, or entity) with the bigger stick making the rules?

    • nicocool84@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      8 months ago

      Let’s say you risk nothing if you murder. Would you start right away going on a killing spree ? Chances you think “I won’t but others will” and others actually think the same. An anarchist would probably analyse this by saying that destroying trust between indivuals living together is a basic tool power use to justify its domination. A pedantic anarchist would get his Latin out at this point. Divide et impera.

      • beSyl@slrpnk.net
        0·
        8 months ago

        You misunderstood my question. I did not mean to ask why there would be no murderers. My question is this:

        • If anarchism is not against rules but rather authority, how would you deal with murderers? If there is no authority to sentence them, would they remain free individuals?