• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess

    Some people, sure. Lots of people, absolutely not.

    We have to make sure those rich elites

    LOL that’s rich. How do you think those people became rich elites? By taking advantage of people who make poor decisions.

    Of course there need to be regulations.

    I’m getting A LOT of mixed signals here… You’re an anarchist, in favor of regulations? How does that work?

    • bc93@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation, not by taking advantage of people’s poor decision-making - this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.

      Anarchists are all about rules and regulations, as long as they’re non-hierarchical - to the extent that one of the major phrases associated with anarchism is “Anarchy is order”, and the well recognised symbol of the A within the O. For example, you could agree with a group of friends to take turns to be the designated driver - any of you can freely and voluntarily decide to get a taxi, but you decide to work together for the benefit of the group. If someone takes advantage of the benefit without taking their turn, you’ll quickly all agree to stop driving that friend. This is a really simplified example of how anarchism works.

      I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it. It’s a very sensible and coherent ideology.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation

        Yes, exactly, exploiting people’s poor decisions. Like predatory loans.

        this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.

        You are intentionally taking away the wrong message.

        Anarchists are all about rules and regulations

        …what? LOL that’s the polar opposite of anarchy…

        I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it.

        Oh ok sure, let me do that:

        anarchy noun an·ar·chy ˈa-nər-kē -ˌnär-

        1a: absence of government

        b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

        c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

        2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order

        • bc93@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Predatory loans is a great example - they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices. If you’re poor and you’re struggling to make ends meet, your credit card is already maxed out because you had to fix your car and you can’t afford groceries what other option do you have other than a short term loan?

          Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things! You know that, you little rascal! If youre interested in the etymology, the term anarchism comes from the greek “an archos”, e.g. without hierarchy. It is possible to have laws without hierarchy.

          An absence of state, definitely. Government? Depends on your definition of government but if you take it to mean state then sure. Lawlessness and disorder, definitely not - I’ve been to several anarchist collective groups and they’re some of the most well-structured, organised and managed events going.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Predatory loans is a great example

            Yes it is.

            they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices.

            Bruh have you forgotten about the global recession of 2006? There were people that had 4 and 5 houses.

            You’ve never heard of the auto loan scams?

            Never heard of the mobile home scams?

            None of those situations are improved by people taking out loans they know they can’t afford.

            Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things!

            So…how am I supposed to learn, exactly? You’re going to tell me? Wikipedia says something similar. If there’s another definition, that’s not the one I was referring to. But you knew that, didn’t you?

            • bc93@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Sure, go read the Wikipedia article, that’ll give you a solid foundation! I’d suggest the Conquest of Bread if you’re interested, or google “what is Anarchism”

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Have they considered renaming the movement? It’s a bit like “believe all women” or “anti-work”. You’re shooting yourself in the foot by using words with concrete definitions that don’t mean what you’re trying to convey.

                • bc93@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  It’s the other way around - because the establishment has so much to fear from anarchism, they peddle anti-anarchist propaganda. If we renamed anarchism, they’d just do the same thing. Anarchism does exactly what the name implies - against heirarchies.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn’t too bad for it:

      Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, this reading of anarchism is placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

      Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.

            • bc93@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              anarchism 1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups 2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

              https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

              Not sure why you’re so obsessed with the dictionary. Is it some kind of kink or something? x

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Your definition doesn’t sound like something with lots of rules…

                Not sure why you’re so obsessed with the dictionary.

                You mean the thing that establishes a common understanding of the meaning of words? Seems pretty important to me 🤷

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    You’re correct. The encyclopedia would be the wrong resource for this type of discussion.

                • bc93@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Arguing based on dictionary definitions is like, a meme. It’s like those facebook memes with the horribly written maths problems. The dictionary definition of a word will never capture the full nuanced meaning of the term. Arguing about it is pure pedantry.