Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion

https://gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strategy=.

Whatever you’re arguing for, I’d suggest using another word

Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.

https://gcide.gnu.org.ua/?q=Anarchy&define=Define&strategy=.

What makes me think that is an anarchist community eschews political organization. There would be no way to arrange a competent defense.

Similar thoughts, trying to decide where to go

I already never intend to play it. I only care about single player. Hopefully this means the game is cheaper.

What is anarchy then? Is it not some state in which everyone agrees not to take power?

Correct. So, what happens when you have, as you say, pure anarchy without rulers and then some folks interested in power notice that you have no organized way to defend yourself? They take the power easily. These people are often warlords. That’s why anarchy is so closely associated with such things, because anarchy is a power vacuum. That vacuum is easily filled. The most rudimentary thing that can fill it are warlords.

I don’t even understand the point you’re trying to make.

Why are they a myth?

? No, power vacuums can exist and are quickly filled by any group with a modicum of power. Look at ISIS. The US deposed the Iraqi government. The new government was weak and those with a stockpile of weapons and funding from other interested countries quickly swept in and took control of large swaths of territory. They also took territory in Syria after the Arab Spring put Assad on his back foot, unable to maintain power in the east.

No we’re talking about definitions. You’re advocating for anarchy being a viable state for humankind, I’m saying practically you can’t enforce or defend its existence without turning it in to something that it is not by definition. It is practically impossible to defend a state of anarchy as it will and always has been overpowered by a more organized, hierarchical force.

Oh okay, thanks for that enlightening response.

No one will unanimously trust a computer model. People will try to undermine and destroy it. So, the question would then be, how do you stop that? And suddenly you’re not really talking about anarchy. The computer will need to enforce its existence through violence.

The point stands though. Pure Anarchism is a power vacuum. There is no way to achieve a power vacuum, it will be quickly filled — the most basic way it is filled is by dictators and warlords. You want to live in a power vacuum? Ask yourself how you will enforce it and suddenly you’re no longer talking about anarchy.

I don’t think practically you could end up with a state of anarchism because it implies that humans can exist in a power vacuum. Something will always fill that vacuum. Now, the question is what is that thing? It can take a lot of forms. The goal should be to make it serve the qualitative needs of most people - food, shelter, well being, safety. People advocating for true anarchy are usually doing so from a naive idealism. Idealism is often good, but sometimes ignores other factors that make the ideal impossible to achieve.

Point 2 is the biggest for me. I haven’t played more than 30 minutes of gta5 online. Single player story is where it’s at. Wish we got more DLC.

They exist just in case they need to crack down on you.

I always think of dog leash laws this way. In many places they aren’t enforced and the majority of dog owners let their dogs off leash. However, if the owner loses control of their dog and it gets into trouble, like biting someone or another dog, then the law can always say, you’re liable because your dog was supposed to be on leash.

I think the same goes for speeding and other laws. It basically puts liability on the lawbreaker if they take a certain risk. If nothing bad happens, fine. But, if something does, then it’s your fault.

He’s failed up his entire career

I don’t see how what they wrote is controversial, unless you’re a tankie.

Is it political spam? They were sending all political emails to spam, but then politicians complained, so they changed that policy.