Yes but i dont want them restricting things at the state level like this either. its wrong. Freedom should come first, no matter what government is involve. Now, if they want to restrict 'feed back to public lines' due to pubic safety and such, sure, but my house, my power, screw them.  

its like the freaking laws here that you cant have any farm animals, even chickens. We started as a country town. That law was put in to place many decades ago, long before the current pavement boom was even imagined.  Some cities even ban gardens unless its flowers.. no food.  its wrong . my yard, my plants.

And the best way, is to dissolve government. And confiscate all members resources and jail them. That is one of the main common threads. ( regardless of my feelings of who is pulling strings )

Wed May 20 2026 01:27:49 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

 You don't want the Right forcing their ideas of what is best on you as an ultimatum, right? Shouldn't it be the same for the Left? What is the best way to achieve that medium? 

 

So you're a minimalist libertarian anarchist with a Left lean? I think that probably best describes you. I'm a libertarian capitalist. I don't think Anarchy is really viable - I love the concept - but I think the reality of its application is impractical. The problem for me is that the extreme Left keeps forcing me to pick my side - and the side that is most compatible with my personal outlook is the right. 

I am at a point where I have to admit - if Germany had won - it wouldn't have probably been bad for *me* personally. Terrible for the world - but personally - if I had grown up knowing nothing but - I would probably have thought it was pretty peachy keen. That is the problem with the current polarizing politics. I am NOT a Nazi. But if I have to choose between the fascist and the Stalinists - I'm Seig Heiling my way all the way down the road. That sounds terrible, I guess - but it is also practical. If you're a straight white European Male and one side says, "you're the worst thing that ever happened to humanity," and the other side says, "no, you're the BEST..." which one would most straight white European males pick? They're literally making us pick these binary choices. 

Wed May 20 2026 11:09:52 EDT from Nurb432

Yes but i dont want them restricting things at the state level like this either. its wrong. Freedom should come first, no matter what government is involve. Now, if they want to restrict 'feed back to public lines' due to pubic safety and such, sure, but my house, my power, screw them.  

its like the freaking laws here that you cant have any farm animals, even chickens. We started as a country town. That law was put in to place many decades ago, long before the current pavement boom was even imagined.  Some cities even ban gardens unless its flowers.. no food.  its wrong . my yard, my plants.

 

And the best way, is to dissolve government. And confiscate all members resources and jail them. That is one of the main common threads. ( regardless of my feelings of who is pulling strings )

 

 

For me, it would not be the end goal, its simply a tool along the way when all others ( like laws, diplomacy, kindness, etc )  fail.  Forcefully tear it down and start over.

But yes, i do believe in personal freedom over government, and every last one that has been created since civilization was formed, has been corrupt. And no, i dont have the 'final answer' on what would work. Problem is enough people suck, that would undo/manipulate/etc any good intentions.

The common thread: Humans.

Fri May 29 2026 23:48:21 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

I don't think Anarchy is really viable

 

 

Today I learned this fun fact:

"Amazon Basics" is an anglicized phrasing of the Mandarin Chinese "最贱的出厂货" which translates to "the cheapest crap we could get off the factory line."

I don't think I can disagree with that - I'd like personal agency to be paramount in how people live their lives - but we get to these limits where "If a Muslim wants to marry a child bride, should we step in and prohibit that because it isn't within the tolerance of OUR culture?" 

I mean, you instantly get into judgement values of which cultural values are *superior*. If they're not forming grooming gangs to indoctrinate YOUR daughters into their culture - doing it within their own circles - do you allow it? What about female genital circumcision? OUR culture has some pretty hard and fast lines - especially on issues like these. 

If they only throw gay MUSLIMS off 5 story buildings - because it is their culture... if they only stone unfaithful Muslim women... do we give them a space in downtown London to do this? How about cutting the hands off of thieves? 

They'll tell you - "this is why our society has less problems with these things than yours does - because we've codified what is right and wrong and are severe in our response to those who do not respect those limits." 

Meanwhile - we're trying to balance our sense of allowing agency and encouraging diversity and tolerance with our nearly zero-tolerance for values they hold as core to their own. 

How do you reconcile these things. 

You form a government - you go, "there will be corruption..." 

And then you find that your government has been ignoring 250,000 cases of rape and abuse of your native citizens because they were afraid that it would seem racist and conflict with your government's values of tolerance and diversity to hold people accountable for forming groups to engage in those abuses. 

It is certainly a pickle. 

Sat May 30 2026 09:15:43 EDT from Nurb432

For me, it would not be the end goal, its simply a tool along the way when all others ( like laws, diplomacy, kindness, etc )  fail.  Forcefully tear it down and start over.

But yes, i do believe in personal freedom over government, and every last one that has been created since civilization was formed, has been corrupt. And no, i dont have the 'final answer' on what would work. Problem is enough people suck, that would undo/manipulate/etc any good intentions.

The common thread: Humans.

Fri May 29 2026 23:48:21 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

I don't think Anarchy is really viable

 

 

 

If they only throw gay MUSLIMS off 5 story buildings - because it is their culture... if they only stone unfaithful Muslim women... do we give them a space in downtown London to do this? How about cutting the hands off of thieves? 

They'll tell you - "this is why our society has less problems with these things than yours does - because we've codified what is right and wrong and are severe in our response to those who do not respect those limits." 

You're describing what some used to call "separate but equal"

It only works some of the time.  Not even most of the time.

Not far from here is a town where a religious group has unofficially taken over the town.  They occupy all of the town board seats and all of the school board seats and basically defund everything, because they have their own customs and practices and schools.  Outsiders are actively prevented from moving in to available homes.  Is that "equitable"?

In urban communities all over the US, videos are being filmed of Shaniqua and Laqueefa beating the crap out of each other and wrecking the entire place while Biff and Muffy just want to get a quick burger to go.  Is that "equitable"?

Perhaps the very reason tensions still exist is because for several generations we were force-fed the idea that "beneath the skin we are all the same".