• saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In anarchy, the encroachments on human rights would be even more profound. Unless you think authorative regulation, intervention, and concepts like tax on social economics is what drives some people to take advantage of others for profit and others to live poorly. But I’m pretty sure things like social housing, tax brackets, monolopy laws, etc. are doing something to prevent things being even worse than what they are now.

      It’s not the system—pick any ideology you want—its the people. We didn’t get to be number one out of billions of species because we fucked around and sniffed daisies. Now that we are number one, the only thing our nature can prey on is each other.

      • ZenFriedRice@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the word anarchy is bad branding. (Though good branding is impossible when the king want his citizens to hate you.)

        From what I understand, the main goal of anarchy is to remove the system that separates us from power. For example, representative democracy makes it so you just go “pretty please represent me” without having any direct agency over the world around you.

        Anarchy is not “remove all the rules”.

        Edit: if there is a system that facilitates personal rights and agency then it is not necessarily against anarchy.