“We want to be sure anyone who has this pizza on hand throws it away so they don’t get sick,” health officials told customers.
“We want to be sure anyone who has this pizza on hand throws it away so they don’t get sick,” health officials told customers.
Not really. People unknowingly ingesting THC is not cool no matter how you label it.
Be a lot cooler if you didn’t, alright alright alright
Isn’t that a definition of anarchy? No law enforcement, everything goes, including uncool things?
That’s how anarchy has been portrayed by propaganda media since time immemorial because it scares those in power.
Anarchy means without hierarchy. That’s it. Rules can still be agreed upon. It just means there isn’t one person, or group of elites, setting and enforcing the rules, but that they’re agreed upon by consensus.
Just like hierarchical systems, there are many different variations of anarchy. Very few, if any, serious forms call for chaos and everything goes.
Why? Because it would just lead straight back to Might is Right. “I’m bigger, stronger, more powerful than you, so I’ll make you do as I wish” isn’t a part of anarchist theory.
Anarchism, despite seeming a simple concept on paper, is a difficult and complicated idea. Not because of the core principles but because humans and human behaviour are weird and hypocritical at times.
Im not aware of any system (outside P2P file exchange protocols) that would make it possible.
Congratulations, you have invented a Socialist Democracy that will inevitably lead to authoritarianism.
You cosplayers don’t get the concept at all do you?
Go back to listening to Green Day and Rage Against the Machine and keep convincing yourself that you want to see the industrial world burn.
No. Anarchy is the opposite of hierarchy.
But it’s the exact same thing. If there’s no hierarchy of some kind, then who’s going to enforce the law? Like putting criminals in jail and prevent violence on the streets?
So I don’t consider myself an anarchist, but the various types of anarchy have come up with answers to this question. Generally, they rely on more social cohesion to enforce social rules. Private property would not be a thing, which cuts out a lot of laws in itself.
Every time I get either downvotes or a non answer like this.
How is this supposed to work in situation where individuals aren’t agreeing with each other? What about communication overhead when large amount of people is involved in decision making? These are the questions anarchists avoid answering.
The only thing I know to work in practice is Torrent protocol for data exchange - but it works in an environment where violence is completely infeasible, and it doesn’t even try to be fair or equal. It’s pure tit-for-tat (aka favor-for-favor) model when there’s bandwidth deficit, and pure charity when there’s a surplus
Also, data is perfectly quantifiable, which is not a thing in more complex enviroments
You just can’t apply torrent in the real life
Since I’m not an anarchist, I’m not going to give a detailed answer. The various threads of anarchism would give different answers, and I’m not about to cover it.
But I can say that there’s plenty of theory out there, and you might be getting downvotes because you don’t seem willing to engage with any of it.