Off-Topic Thread vol. 2

Politely: No.

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.”

1 Like

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. . . .

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

Can confirm that the concept of “misrule” and corruption is a feature of even very authoritarian societies. Many strict hierarchies punish such things very severely-- at least in theory.

In practice, regularly, like, beheading people for incompetence or corruption creates a situation where the incompetent and/or corrupt will do anything to avoid being caught, which breeds more corruption. Restraint and moderation tends to make it more manageable, but doesn’t paint a pretty picture for the public. So probably most places you end up with a few stand-out cases being very visibly punished to the fullest extent of the law and most being sort of politely relieved of power and pushed to the margins-- and maybe not even that.

I bet even the Angel Cartel has a corruption problem, even if they kind of try to be the very face of corruption itself. It’s kind of a persistent headache for probably everybody but Sansha Kuvakei.

1 Like

Who is Bob?

I mean, it’s too broad and open-ended a question. Which Bob do I mean? Which government were you talking about? Because I certainly wasn’t speaking about any specific government when I said that the tenets of a philosophy that espouses a complete lack of government does in fact, preclude legislation and crime.

Who is making legislation without a government? What binding power does it have that makes it actually legislation and not just a bunch of people going ‘wow, this is a good idea’?

I mean, if you’re talking about the broader conceptual argument? The government is the body with the power to enforce its will upon the populace. Different forms of government derive their authority from different philosophical sources, but in the end, it always comes down to ‘they’re the people who can enforce their will upon the masses’. A government that can’t enforce its will isn’t a government.

At best, it’s an ineffectual body claiming to be a government while the people it claims to govern completely ignore it. It’s not governing, though, so it’s not a government.