What's the easiest way to shut down an anarchist
>>70090896
Scare them to the point they call the cops on you.
Violence
>>70090896
i really, really like this picture
Just stall them until their mom comes to pick them up
>>70090896
>War mongers gaining power through individuals being force recruited/volunteering to do said war lords bidding with no one to stop them
>No way to assure anyone gets anything enabling more crime with no rule of law
>No official borders so what "culture" was there is now horribly diluted due to immigrants
>No government means no money therefore everyone steals, makes or hunts what they need
>No running water that is guaranteed clean due to no government paid employees running it all
>No electricity unless you do it yourself with a generator
>No civilized rule of law due to no law of the land or law enforcement
Anarchism is a high school kids attempt at politics. Ultimately people can't be trusted to do whatever they want with no laws.
>Tell them to graduate high school first
>>70091129
>>70091143
>>70091168
>>70091204
>>70091367
not an argument
>>70091204
kek
this desu laddies
Ask them what would happen if a person who owned all of the plumbing and energy for the entire town was abusive to their children and no one in town wanted to say anything in case their power gets shut off
Just leave them alone. They'll go to their social media hashtag hugbox and post memes and get affirmation until the next time they speak with someone over the age of 25.
I'm a right libertarian and even I know anarchism is a stupid fucking meme.
>>70090896
You can't.
>>70090896
Tell them they are libertarians, and vice versa.
Seriously, people believing the meme of libertarianism and anarchism usually shut them selves down.
>>70091424
yeah it is.
>ROADS
>>70091424
Alright picky brit I'll write you a damn novel.
Anarchism doesn't work on some basic fundamental levels. It advocates no government, no rule of law and everyone doing what they want. With no instituted law one citizen could get a large group of people to follow their ideals and kill settlements systematically in order to enact their own laws. With no one organized enough to be able to stop them said warlord will inevitably take down the entire system.
Also with no government you have no currency system outside of what a settlement could produce locally. This currency wouldn't be internationally traded and would ultimately have the intrinsic worth of a Zimbabwe dollar. Trade would be incredibly unfair even just over the state line or the next town over.
Speaking on the topic of international trade. With no established military the country would be ripe for the taking for invaders. Due to the mixed ambitions, ideas and moralities of the people they would be unable to organize well enough or have the training to fight off a major invasion.
As well not everyone wants to run a septic facility in their home town or a nuclear plant. These jobs require training and expertise much of which would be unavailable or unknown to the general populace resulting in all public programs, facilities and services screeching to a halt.
Anarchism in any form is literal failure. The name itself is used to describe countries who lose all rule of law and devolve into looters and criminals which is what anarchism inevitably bring.
Thank you and goodnight.
>>70091710
>libertarianism = anarchism
Why is this meme so rampant on /pol/
>>70091424
Argumentum ad baculum, look it up kiddo
Take away their mom's food stamps.
>>70091990
Anarchism = libertarian.
>>70090896
Encourage him to be an anarchist, and to immediately engage in anarchy.
You can then visit him in jail for Christmas, and probably the next 20 or 30, if he's a friend or family member.
>>70090896
Ask him how he gets his food.
>>70092262
From government? Or mutually advantagous exchange?
You people need to read Hoppe
Easy, show them this
>>70092192
You're right. Voting against government surveillance, rampant spending, involvement in foreign wars that don't affect the homeland, government enforced morality, and welfare/social security is anarchy.
>>70092432
Not necessarily, since it depends on the context of what "voting" means and the circumstances surrounding it. There's nothing anarchistic about any state of affairs in which there's a government.
>>70091990
>meme
>>70091967
Literally all wrong.
I'm not even an anarchist. I don't believe in anarchy because nationalism is an important motivator for citizens. But that is all wrong.
If I were an anarchist, I would argue that: There's going to be some sort of organization that takes the government's role. There's going to be an organization that enforces laws to and protects costumers. Everything would practically be the same. But these organizations don't have the power to force you to pay. If an organization tries to do so, you'll just hire a different one to protect your rights. If you don't have money to do so, well that's alright, you can either use charity, or chances are you don't need it anyway. You protect yourself by the fact everyone else is protected. It's the same logic behind gun logic. If 99% of homes have a gun, 1% of homes don't need a gun
>>70090896
The first time I saw those on a truck, I thought it was like a gay dtf symbol or something.
I chuckle a bit every time I see one.
>>70092413
this
>>70092678
>protect your rights
>protect customers
>but these organizations don't have the power to force you to pay
MY FUCKING SIDES!
>some sort of organization that takes the governments role
You can't have no government and have a government that's not how anarchism works. That "organization" would be your local warlord aka Joseph Kony. Criminals would have the play of the land because no one would be willing to step up to face them for no pay and no compensation other than "good job".
>If you don't have the money to do so
Who prints this money? Who overheads the exchange rate of local currency? What entity ensures fair trade of said currency?
>gun logic
We have police that do a really good job at keeping crime levels minimal and reducing civilian casualties. In a country with no entity to enforce a rule of law there is no police forcing every citizen to protect themselves.
Anarchy has never been a system of government in the world because it is always the lack of or destruction of existing government.
Nothing about anarchism works.
Plain.
Simple.
Understand that humans aren't docile and peaceful we only are right now because we have institutions of governments to keep people in line.
That's literally why governments exist in the first place.
>>70090896
>demonstrate a coherent way in which a non-authoritative body is able to administer the will of the masses
The fatal flaw in anarchism is the belief that authority is always wrong.
>>70091990
It's not "rampant on /pol/", It's a ubiquitous opinion
Sorry your ideology is fucking retarded and useless
>>70090896
Rob him and laugh if he reports you to the police.
Wow I knew /pol/ was retarded but judging by most of these replies none of you have ever read in-depth into the ideology or the history, or for that matter how most interactions are anarchic by nature. You all really feel for the "anarchy is pure chaos" meme? I thought you knew better than to believe everything you're told without further analysis, but apparently I was wrong
Not even an anarchist, but still pretty disappointed tbqh senpai
>>70093481
look at the syrian kurdistan, they pretty much applied mooray bookchin's anarchi-communism, works pretty well, there is military, constitution, everybody takes turns policing, everybody has guns and they even kill isis along the way.
>>70093481
well anarchism does actually work, only in the way that it destroys whatever government system came before it, history has shown that all empires eventually fall.
>>70092678
>There's going to be some sort of organization that takes the government's role. There's going to be an organization that enforces laws to and protects costumers. Everything would practically be the same. But these organizations don't have the power to force you to pay. If an organization tries to do so, you'll just hire a different one to protect your rights. If you don't have money to do so, well that's alright, you can either use charity, or chances are you don't need it anyway.
That's a government. You just took the label off.
There is order created by an authority, thus it's not anarchy.
>>70093546
Anarchism isn't the belief all authority is wrong, it's the belief that authority is not self legitimizing and any hierarchy that can not prove its legitimacy without the use of force or intervention should be dismantled
It's literally just a form of non-statist socialism; anarchy is often called libertarian socialism.
>>70090896
pull a gun on them
"what are you gonna do, call the cops?"
>>70094164
Yes. It is government, it's just non-centralized and limited to the level of individual communities.
Go pick up a book senpai you could probably learn to shitpost better
>>70094164
His point is that someone will step into the role regardless, like mafia, because the need will always exist. Hence why government exists at all
Ask him how anarchist city-states could mount an effective defence against a foreign state.
He will quickly talk about "muh militia", which you can demonstrate is a terrible strategy because it basically requires allowing the enemy army into your land to take your shit and wreck your country before you can even begin fighting him - and it's vastly less successful than a conventional army if you look at history, outside of a few notable examples.
Then he will talk about "muh private defence companies", to which you can say "if you have lots of little private defence companies your 'army' will be a clusterfuck and inefficient, and get BTFO, and if you have one big private defence company then consumers have no choice and the private defence company can just take over and become the state - that's literally how the feudal system formed." And you can also say that it's up to individual groups to hire these private defence companies and not all groups are going to rush to the aid of a few cities a few hundred kilometres away on the other side of the country, so the unwieldy inefficient army that you have is also going to be small.
Then he will say "well the anarchist state will _always_ be richer and have better technology so it doesn't matter because 1 anarchist soldier in his clumsy inefficient outnumbered army will be worth 100 foreign soldiers", at which point you can just stop and laugh because
a) you can't guarantee that anarchists will always be richer and smarter even if their economy is more efficient because of random chance
b) large, bad armies beat small, good armies all the time
c) technology and superior soldiers don't matter if all the soldiers are doing their own thing and the military is a backstabbing clusterfuck of 80 different armies trying to work together
And then he will huff and leave and not change his opinion and everybody's time will have been wasted.
So don't bother.
>>70094346
Which means anarchy doesn't work, so his hypothetical anarchist just hypothetically BTFO of himself.
Post the image of Antifa and ISIS and watch the butthurt begin.
>>70090896
Wait for him to turn 18
The only real way to handle it.
>>70091990
Libertarianism just just a polite version of Anarchy.
>>70091967
I hardly ever post on this website, I lurk a lot, but I had to make an exception to make this post. You are literally a huge retard and the fact that you know nothing at all about which you speak is really obvious. Just because you are a young man with a big ego and you seem to have thought about anarchism for 30 seconds doesn't mean you actually know anything. I'm not even defending anarchism, just god damn kid you are a fucking moron.
>>70094604
Pretty much this. Anarchists literally started calling themselves libertarians to avoid the chaos meme.
>Be a murderer
>Kill everyone because no one is going to pay for a police force able to hunt you down, due to
1. The police force is expensive.
2. The police force does not have any education at all, I mean, who'd tutor them?
>Be the president of the nation of Clichea
>See resource-rich region with no system of governance, and no centralized resistance
>Win
>Be poor
>See shining beacon of civillization in the distance
>They let you in
>Bring your entire family
>Drag it down to your level
>Be smart
>Have some mates
>Conquer the local village through pure monopoly of force
>Be smart with a starting capital
>Sell addicting substances
>Force addicted into wage slavery to pay for their habit
Bullet. I have talked with some anarchists. They are so incredibly poorly informed on everything, including their own ideology, that deadly violence is the only solution.
>>70095149
ITT: shitposting sven
>>70090896
You're an American so why not just ask them what would stop you from shooting them if there was no government?
>>70090896
Even if you can bring about a region where anarchy is the rule, you will still have neighbours. That's when they burn their little dream to ashes and annex their asses, thus annihilating anarchy.
It's a pipe dream for people too dumb to take an interest in politics but intelligent enough to see it when politicians fuck up.
>>70090896
You can't
t. Anarcho-capitalist
>>70094332
So, it's not anarchism, it's federalism pushed to its limits.
>>70096104
>>70096148
Good memes, slov'anski brat!
Anarchists are just cucks willing to be governed by others
>>70096305
That depends on your concept of federalism. I'd say it's closer to federalism at its least intrusive level by free association (as opposed to coercion by force or manipulation, which is generally the case).
Although, I must point out that modern federalism is about increasing the scope of central government where as anarchism is about decreasing it to a vanishing minimum.
This evaluation also doesn't take into account the methods of which federalist governments have generally gone about legitimizing their authority (which is usually through the punishment of what would be considered undesirable behaviour and incompetent intervention) which would be at odds with federalist beliefs and practices.
I could make the argument go both ways, arguing that federalism is corrupted anarchism, but you're probably biased and not interested in hearing an objective and fair argument simply for the sake of understanding different political ideologies better.
>>70097343
Well I have a hard time understanding what makes anarchism different from other forms of de-centralised political organisation, other than the sheer scale of it.
>>70097343
>which would be at odds with federalist beliefs and practices
*which would be at odds with anarchist beliefs and practices
Typo, sorry senpai
You walk away knowing they will live the rest of their life under the control of the government.
Literally no intervention needed for you to get the last laugh.
>>70097464
It's pretty much just about scale, free association and how much you value liberty over order/hierarchy. That's a pretty general statement i'm making though, because really the only central theme throughout all the different schools of anarchist theory is the questioning of authority.
>>70097623
The problem is that there needs to be some form of authority at some level. The very fact that we can compare federalism with anarchism to a point is evidence of that. Which leads me to think that, in order to think of anarchism as a valid option, you have to value liberty over pretty much everything else, including national pride, living standards, technological and scientifical progress...Because all other forms of government provide all that, only to the cost of personal liberty.
>>70094802
Libertarianism is minarchism you fucking leaf.
A government.
>I didnt look I wonder if its already been posted
>>70097817
Anarchism doesn't really suggest that there is no authority, that's a common misconception. Anarchism is really about questioning authority and dismantling it where it isn't needed, wanted, or legitimate, which all too often is the case; government has a bad tendency of overstepping its bounds simply to exert its authority.
>Which leads me to think that, in order to think of anarchism as a valid option, you have to value liberty over pretty much everything else, including national pride, living standards, technological and scientifical progress...Because all other forms of government provide all that, only to the cost of personal liberty.
I don't believe government is really the ones providing that. A government is only worth as much as the society to which it has been delegated authority. In other words, these are the achievements of people, not of the state, to be more specific these are achievements of people living within a state but not the state itself, providing funding or order doesn't necessarily make the state the party responsible. Although, that argument isn't really bullet proof, that's a two way street, as you could easily argue that the circumstances needed to foster those advances require a state.
It's all about your personal perception.
>>70098011
Anarchism can be minarchism. If you're not retarded, you can easily see how anarchism is a constructivist ideology that can be molded into pretty much anything you want. Anarchism doesn't reject authority itself, only authority that is deemed illegitimate.
