Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos, a lack of social order, Mad Max, or a power vacuum. Depending on which flavor of anarchism we’re talking about, political power is distributed among the population evenly.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
I’m not sure what you are clarifying for but I can at least make my point more explicit : I didn’t use anarchism in a derogatory manner, on the contrary. I was trying to highlight that anarchism, like democracy, is demanding because it demands of its participants to actually take part.
I disagree with the assertion of a power vacuum because anarchists propose new power structures, not the chaotic capitalist strawman.
And we aren’t dedicated or educated enough for representatives either - garbage in, garbage out. Representation isn’t a filter through which bad votes become good policy. We’re destroying the biosphere at maximum speed because voters are misinformed.
I think he addressed that though. Anarchy requires knowledgable participation in small sections of the responsible governance that would normally go to representatives.
To put it in simple terms, people don’t need to know how to build bridges, but they need to understand they, as with every other person in the village, are each tasked with carrying one boulder to a piling in the river.
There is no safe way to outsource the organization of society - we all need to learn civics, or an anarchist equivalent. It’s the same voters either way, and where voters lack knowledge we see corruption, not altruistic leadership.
The intermediary layer of representatives no longer serves a useful purpose, and introduces a principal agent problem.
I don’t see how that would happen/function in reality though.
“Just want you to ask yourself: when you gain results the wrong way, what are you left with in the end? Only dark regret and a deep emptiness that have nowhere to go.” - Suzaku Kururugi
You can work within a system to change it and peacefully push for change from the outside.
Anarchy doesn’t mean chaos, a lack of social order, Mad Max, or a power vacuum. Depending on which flavor of anarchism we’re talking about, political power is distributed among the population evenly.
— Buckminster Fuller
I’m not sure what you are clarifying for but I can at least make my point more explicit : I didn’t use anarchism in a derogatory manner, on the contrary. I was trying to highlight that anarchism, like democracy, is demanding because it demands of its participants to actually take part.
I disagree with the assertion of a power vacuum because anarchists propose new power structures, not the chaotic capitalist strawman.
And we aren’t dedicated or educated enough for representatives either - garbage in, garbage out. Representation isn’t a filter through which bad votes become good policy. We’re destroying the biosphere at maximum speed because voters are misinformed.
I think he addressed that though. Anarchy requires knowledgable participation in small sections of the responsible governance that would normally go to representatives.
To put it in simple terms, people don’t need to know how to build bridges, but they need to understand they, as with every other person in the village, are each tasked with carrying one boulder to a piling in the river.
There is no safe way to outsource the organization of society - we all need to learn civics, or an anarchist equivalent. It’s the same voters either way, and where voters lack knowledge we see corruption, not altruistic leadership.
The intermediary layer of representatives no longer serves a useful purpose, and introduces a principal agent problem.
I don’t see how that would happen/function in reality though.
“Just want you to ask yourself: when you gain results the wrong way, what are you left with in the end? Only dark regret and a deep emptiness that have nowhere to go.” - Suzaku Kururugi
You can work within a system to change it and peacefully push for change from the outside.