#CHAZ is literally a joke for anarchism

@waltercool But anarchism itself is a joke

#CHAZ is just what happens when you actually put it in practice

@realcaseyrollins Anarchism is an ideal, self-governance and "voluntary associations" are something slowly growing at society. Still a long term ideal and not applicable nowadays

Social-Anarchism (red flag anarchism) is dumb as heck, no private property, abolishing markets, forced associations by mob-rule is just a way back to primitive cavern times society.

@waltercool The first leads to the second...so you won't have one without the other

@realcaseyrollins Personally don't think so, Anarchism is a quite complex theory with multiple branches.

For example AnCaps believe on a decentralized society with no rulers and no public property, but voluntary associations and accepting private property with their rules

AnComs/AnSyn believe on a society with no rulers and no private property, all associations came from communes/syndicalists, and people can do whatever they want as everything is public (so, zero investment)

@waltercool

> a society with no rulers and no private property, all associations came from communes/syndicalists, and people can do whatever they want as everything is public

Well that is the society that leads to the rise of #RazSimone, American Warlord.

With no governing authorities, there is nothing to stop the creation of a governing authority.

Power vacuums are always filled. That's how the real world works.

@realcaseyrollins But that's why people must bear on arms, definitively no anarchist society would work if people are disarmed.

Voluntary associations doesn't really makes a zero option for rulers, but people are free to choose governance to follow. For ex. I met few AnCap theorist who consider themselves Monarchists (bit myself included), even social democrats may be accepted, as long people can choose the associations they want.

Nowadays, the "social agreement" and "government decides on all property" are just slavery and tyranny.

@waltercool

> definitively no anarchist society would work if people are disarmed.

Why would it work if people were armed?

Here's an example: psycho shoots up a family while they're eating. Watcha gonna do?

Scenario 1: No one does anything to him, because there's no court or legal system, he goes and shoots more people because he's emboldened, people go "hey I can kill people too" and it becomes just part of the culture.

Scenario 2: A couple people take him down. The people go "we can't have this happen again", so the two dudes walk around, patrolling, looking out for murderers.

Anarchy works until people do bad things to each other. Guns have nothing to do with it.