• Bgugi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

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

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        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.

          • Bgugi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            15 hours ago

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

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              15 hours ago

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

              • Bgugi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                13 hours ago

                “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.

                • Ardent@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  13 hours 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.

                • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  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.

                  • Bgugi@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    13 hours ago

                    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.