What power vacuum? What does that even mean? That somebody is always in power over someone else?
If no one is making you do something, you simply choose for yourself. Existence of some kind of a power vacuum would mean that no one can make a decision for themselves about anything, but that some one has to tell them what to do. Which obviously makes no sense, since someone ultimately has to decide.
Politics is all about decision making power. If you have no rulers, then people have the decision making power to choose to live as they wish.
A power vacuum happens when a government gets overthrown with no tangible system to replace it. That means that if you successfully replace a hierarchy based system with a flat system, there will be no power vacuum, because the power has been defined and delegated.
If you just kill the leaders, rip down the system and go around believing that by the honour system you’ve effectively changed society and everyone will be happy forever, someone else will step in and define a new central authority, most likely through violence and persecution, due to the:
power vacuum.
I was relying on allusion and subtext, but that was a mistake. Some people can’t read between the lines and draw inference according to their own bias.
You could have asked me to clarify, but instead you assumed - and what is assumption?
Well you are assuming that someone would step in with central authority.
I will not get into a pointless fight of who was right, we agree that another system should be put in place. We might disagree that it quite natural to put a system of direct democracy in place when there is no central goverment, as it is often the case inside a friend group when people are making a decision about where they are going to eat or whatever.
It is not my fault that I assumed what you are trying to say, it is quite reasonable and necessary in any conversation to assume what someone is trying to say if they haven’t been perfectly clear, which is ok since no one can be perfectly clear all the time.
But you do have a bit of an attitude, in your orginal comment and here. You are being a bit arrogant and degrading other peoples opinions.
Bro, you didn’t make any case against my arguments, and as far as being a contrarian is concerned, you remind me of why people project their own problems on to others.
You still haven’t made a solid case of why a power vacuum isn’t going to happen if a government gets overthrown, without any system to replace it.
You strike me as one of those anarchists who don’t think anarchy has any political system.
And as far as being a contrarian is concerned, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
How can I make an argument against if I agree with you? Did you even read my previous reply? This is exactly what I said, you just pick a battle where no one is disagreeing with you, just so you can feel smart to win an argument no one is arguing against you.
What is your next comment going to be, asking again for an counter argument to the same point we are agreeing on?
Then the power vacuum has been filled, no?
Yes anarchy as a the school of thought doesn’t suggest a power vacuum but rather filling that vacuum with everyone
What power vacuum? What does that even mean? That somebody is always in power over someone else? If no one is making you do something, you simply choose for yourself. Existence of some kind of a power vacuum would mean that no one can make a decision for themselves about anything, but that some one has to tell them what to do. Which obviously makes no sense, since someone ultimately has to decide. Politics is all about decision making power. If you have no rulers, then people have the decision making power to choose to live as they wish.
A power vacuum happens when a government gets overthrown with no tangible system to replace it. That means that if you successfully replace a hierarchy based system with a flat system, there will be no power vacuum, because the power has been defined and delegated.
If you just kill the leaders, rip down the system and go around believing that by the honour system you’ve effectively changed society and everyone will be happy forever, someone else will step in and define a new central authority, most likely through violence and persecution, due to the:
power vacuum.
I was relying on allusion and subtext, but that was a mistake. Some people can’t read between the lines and draw inference according to their own bias.
You could have asked me to clarify, but instead you assumed - and what is assumption?
Well you are assuming that someone would step in with central authority. I will not get into a pointless fight of who was right, we agree that another system should be put in place. We might disagree that it quite natural to put a system of direct democracy in place when there is no central goverment, as it is often the case inside a friend group when people are making a decision about where they are going to eat or whatever. It is not my fault that I assumed what you are trying to say, it is quite reasonable and necessary in any conversation to assume what someone is trying to say if they haven’t been perfectly clear, which is ok since no one can be perfectly clear all the time. But you do have a bit of an attitude, in your orginal comment and here. You are being a bit arrogant and degrading other peoples opinions.
A power vacuum is about systems and not leaders, but kill a leader, and the power vacuum happens.
Find someone else to argue with if you don’t want to accept objective reality.
I never disagreed with you on this. You just want to argue and feel smarter then everybody.
Bro, you didn’t make any case against my arguments, and as far as being a contrarian is concerned, you remind me of why people project their own problems on to others.
You still haven’t made a solid case of why a power vacuum isn’t going to happen if a government gets overthrown, without any system to replace it.
You strike me as one of those anarchists who don’t think anarchy has any political system.
And as far as being a contrarian is concerned, people in glass houses should not throw stones.
How can I make an argument against if I agree with you? Did you even read my previous reply? This is exactly what I said, you just pick a battle where no one is disagreeing with you, just so you can feel smart to win an argument no one is arguing against you. What is your next comment going to be, asking again for an counter argument to the same point we are agreeing on?