Because

It would be quite hilarious if it turned out every single operator took that into consideration and secretly deployed countermeasures to nullify that tactic.

Imagine a wing showing up prepared for no resistance and they run straight into it.

Fuck if I know. The rich people are really evil.

Yeah I’m almost certain that is exactly what is happening

Oh it’s immutable? Damn.

That explains some shit.

How do I go about switching to CachyOS? Just wipe the NVME and run an installer?

A large number of anarchists are armed, yes.

Two things can be true like everything in life.

Anarchists/radical leftists want a society where weapons are unnecessary. Many are armed until that is possible precisely because the existing establishments are prone to violence.

Again, pre-soviet Ukraine is an excellent example of this.

Some of us choose not to be. But that isn’t to say we won’t take up arms, or provide other means of defending ourselves.

In an anarchist society we would rather work to end the conditions that encourage violence - usually that is inequality. Many people with disabilities can still participate, with no expectations on how they do. Some simply cannot, so we would provide support as possible. Something else to remember is that while people can certainly choose to specialize in a role within the community, polymaths are exceptionally valuable.

We harbor no illusions that the society is easy to obtain. But that can’t be a surprise giving wars have been fought over taxes.

I already went over that - anarchists aren’t pacifists.

Someone will see them, and inform others, and they will self organize into a temporary militia.

The groups of rapists? Do you intend to prosecute them as a group?

Edit: and modern systems are incapable of preventing rape, or any crime. The threat of prison time does not prevent crime. Crime still happens. Crimes are not identical to one another.

It’s not that different in anarchy, it just doesn’t work the way you are accustomed to.

When I mention a ‘trial’ it doesn’t refer to someone being a judge - judges are individuals who are supposed to be impartial, and that is impossible.

There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.

Any action taken, of course, is open to consequences. If it turns out that the people who formed an opinion on guilt and punishment were prejudice against the accused, then they would have to face that too.

We don’t think ourselves as “above” anyone. It’s fine for anyone to believe that they need someone telling them what they can and can’t do.

Anarchists reject the notion that anyone can tell us what we can and can’t do beyond the rule of “do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

I would not murder someone to obtain their land, as I would not have them murder me so they could take my land.

However, it would be naive to think that no one had the desire to take my land, and there for would defend it, and ask fellow anarchists to help. The reason why they would is because if they needed to defend their land, they would want help too.

As far as labels go, you are correct. We would prefer to not label our alignments. It’s why you see so many different interpretations of what being a leftist or anarchist is to them. But not only do we have the differences, we celebrate them.

Excellently said. I too was vehemently anti-anarchist, when I was younger. simply because I couldn’t stand the idea of not having any “order”.

It’s not that rules don’t exist in anarchy, it’s just that they are not static. Everything is dynamic to address the needs of people at that specific point in time.

Yes I was agreeing with you.

I keep seeing it pop up everywhere as if there are attempts to legitimize it.

No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.

You can organize a response. The response does not need to remain organized after it’s accomplished what it’s purpose was.

Also no institutions in existence prevent violence, theft, extortion, abduction or human trafficking. They can only respond to it.

I haven’t seen the show, but peace without needing to enforce it is the ultimate goal.

There have been no institutions that protect against violence in an equitable way.

Anarcho-capitalism isn’t remotely anarchy. It’s fuedalism full stop.

Yes it is a mega democracy.

Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.

Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.

Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone’s dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn’t of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.

Hey! Those are excellent ways of describing it. I kind of neglected the fact that it’s democratic in the extreme. Everything is voted on.

And yes, the concept of a State is non-existent.

Ukraine has had a long history of it for example. It never quite died either. And even plays a role in today’s conflict against Russian invasion.

Right at the start of the 2022 offensive, everyone east of Kiev was making improvised weapons, barricades etc, because they knew Russia would roll over them before the Ukrainian Military had moved enough personnel to evacuate.

They didn’t do it because it was their job, they didn’t do it for a sense of Ukrainian pride. They did it because it was their home.

What? Where did you get that?

The trial part? I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.