Only if I can subvert expectations and be the Gallente actress who doesn’t end up topless in every movie I’m in.
Ok. You gonna answer the initial question?
Who are the government? Why do they get to make laws?
That varies from one jurisdiction to the next, doesn’t it? It doesn’t change the fact that anarchist principles push for no government at all, and so are at odds with making anything illegal.
No government doesn’t mean no governance.
And now I promise to stay away from this hair-splitting contest.
You’ve simply restated your assumptions without answering the question.
Yes it does.
If some entity carries out governance… they’re the government.
It’s pretty simple.
That’s not correct even at the usual Summit discourse level of dictionary definition pedantry; the absolute simplest counterexamples are things like market or non-Caldari corporate governance.
The governments of nations are not the only “governments.”
You can be the government of a corporation or the government of a particular market.
You’re just attached to the idea of “anarchy” because it’s edgy.
Hm. I seem to remember from somewhere, ma’am, that there can be some kind of curious … gradations? Shades? Nuances? Of anarchy? … Which seems a little strange to say.
I’ve either forgotten or never really knew the details, and the whole thing is marked in my memory with a huge “SKEPTICAL” marker I assume my predecessor left. But, there might some interesting ideas out there among anarchists for how to, uh, try to make their hoped-for non-government work, systemically.
I’m not saying they’d work, at least on a large scale (and it seems like people can make almost anything work on a small one). But it might be interesting to find out more, if that’s what these people are aiming for.
Ah, but you needed to put the second one in scare quotes. Why is that?
This is a pretty hard shift from discussing ideas to straight-up ascribing motivations, but sure! I can play that game. Ah, hm… “You’re just someone who doesn’t understand the concepts they’re discussing and can’t conceive of a life outside of servitude.”
They’re not “scare quotes.” It’s to point out that they’re not the only things that can be correctly referred to with the word “government.”
I’m just sick and tired of people who grew up in one of the empires and ultimately submit to the authority of CONCORD as capsuleers, but put the concept of “anarchy” on a pedestal.
You think what people need is less rule of law? You must have noticed by now how absolutely barbaric and deranged the average capsuleer is with the lax regulation of us by CONCORD, right?
Without laws and enforcement of those laws ( both of which come from a government), people do terrible, horrible things regularly and don’t think twice. As capsuleers, our ilk are the best example of what happens if the laws are too loose and lenient.
So-- this won’t be directly responsive, in a sense, ma’am, but really we’re all pretty dependent on the complex system of laws set up to protect us. The law may not regulate us, but it does essentially create us. If anarchists are setting up structures for themselves within capsuleer society, it’s at least partly doable because the law establishes every capsuleer as functionally a (tyrannical?) despot ruling a tiny independent state.
Such states naturally exist and interact among themselves in a state of anarchy, so. . . .
Yes, and what of those things are and do actually varies widely, and not all anarchists are actually opposed to all of them, and that’s not the whole of anarchism; otherwise we would simply be “anti-government” instead of “anarchist.”
I did? I do? Hm.
Personally, I don’t find it very productive to get into a discussion out of a desire to vent frustration. Usually it just makes me more angry.
They tend to do them with those laws and enforcement of them in place as well. Sometimes the law helps and rewards them to do horrible things. Capsuleers do not spring up in nature; our very existence, our freedom to kill almost at will, and in a lot of cases be rewarded for it, had to be very specifically created by a government, and implemented by a great deal of law.
If there’s a governing structure it’s not anarchy.
I’m not arguing that anarchy cannot exist. It can.
I just hold anarchy to its definition, as a state of having no government and think it’s inferior to having a government, laws, and enforcement of them. It’s not something to strive for.
I mean, an anarchist is somebody against the recognition of a governing authority. Being “for anarchy” and “against having any government” are one in the same.
Many capsuleers kill even when punished.
Many capsuleers kill even when they’ve nothing to gain.
I agree that CONCORD doesn’t properly incentivize the right things in many cases in regards to capsuleer regulation. But it’s not because they’re regulating too much. They need to crack down harder.
A vigorous assault at a position most anarchists do not hold on, the basis of a definition most anarchists themselves do not use seems… pointless.
I do appreciate that you at least seem to realize that authority can be mis-used, and isn’t self-justifying.
Which is why I’m pointing out the irony, ma’am.
It may be possible to create an entity within capsuleer society that functions as an anarchy (and capsuleer society writ large does function that way, more or less) precisely and only because the legal framework exists to create that situation. It’s also why many of the forces that ordinarily would cause a proper anarchy to almost immediately crystallize into something else don’t function normally.
I’m not saying that anarchy is a workable system for governing (or, I guess, “organizing”) humanity. I’m saying just what you are, ma’am: that the anarchy of capsuleer society is a result-- even a deliberate product-- of the laws that surround us.
If you want to refine a word that means “without government” to mean “a different type of government,” then you can hardly be surprised when people don’t know what you mean.
Yes, I do in-fact realize that an entity can govern poorly and misuse authority.
Indeed, what do words even mean.
It’s been a pleasure talking to you.