• PugJesus@piefed.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    You may want to look into what most anarchists actually advocate for. It’s generally not the colloquial meaning of anarchy as ‘no rules’.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      im not saying its the colloquial. im saying many people here say its does not allow for a structured national government system with authority over its members. I never hear anyone saying it just needs to be limited to some issues like miliatry defense or socail wealfare. I do see a lot of explanations on how tempory federations or such would come together. to handle bigger things and everything is opt in or out not across the board laws everyone has to follow except for non agression which is often times really vague. oh its only someones body. well what if they pollutes then some stuff on well clans or temproray bodies that prevent that but you are immediately into property and boarders and such when you get to that which me laws and hierarchy and national government and such. I mean if anarchy is what im talking about then we have it now it just needs to be tweaked.