211
The paradox of electoralism (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

Right.

Clans.

Imagine countries, but youre free to move to whichever clan you wanna live with, because every clan has their own rules.

These days every country has more-less the same laws so there is no choice of life, really.

And the choice should be close to you, so its feasable so you can actually move there.

This can only be achieved if the clans are smaller and bigger in numbers aka more often and not too far from every person, ideally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    So a world where, lets say, anarchist, liberal and fascist "clans" coexist peacefully, freedom of movement is guaranteed and supported by all those clans and information regarding all existing clans are available freely so people can make informed decisions?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    While not quite exactly, the situation you're describing isn't too far off from some of the ways people have lived historically. I 10/10 recommend reading The Dawn of Everything if you're interested. Some of that research really changed my thoughts about what is possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yes?

    Why do you make it sound like its a joke instead of a idea worth contemplating?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Because a large part of many of these practices is the exclusion of all others. Thanks for sharing, though!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    What you mean?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    They do not want to coexist. The existence of an 'other' is a threat/attack to them.

    Read nazi philosopher carl schmitt or fiction novel 'blindsight'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    If we could come up with an agreement of like maximum land size per person and minimum distance between the next such clan, maybe it could function?

    But then again nobody would be in the fashist clan, and they would not like this idea haha

    What else do you propose?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Noted elsewhere. Differences will happen. Why make them discrete or sacred?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    How do we achieve anarchist land and life, with preferably 0 bloodshed or prison time?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I expect the same way you continue as is without any prison or bloodshed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    It is not.

    I am already forced into slavery via work, taxes, and the entire school-school-work-work-work-die way of EXISTING, not living.

    So by doing nothing I am already shoved into a live-like-this box.

    Trying to get out of that box would not go well for anyone.

    Trying to live outside the box would break oh so many laws, rules, from a world I and many do not want to be apart of.

    IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH? Lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That was not my intention, instead I tried to repeat your idea in my own words to make sure I actually understand. Also I intentionally added kinda opposing factions and the concept "freedom of movement" to my question to make the idea more clear to me and others.

    Also your idea reminds a little of the "World where many worlds fit" idea that comes from (or I have first learned of when reading) zapatista texts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •