anarchists-for-big-government:
anarchists-for-big-government:
Makes it easy for a big group to oppress a smaller one, which while probably kinda better than a small group oppressing a bigger one, cause less people are oppressed is still inherently shitty, cause like democracy can be used to oppress POC in a white majority country and stuff, but then we have this history of that idea being used to use the theoretical people to oppress the literal people
So like? What do?
Google is only turning up monarchists
I’m not saying there is no good alternative, I just have no frickin’ idea.
Like I mean constitutions n’ shit are supposed to stop that but we know that hasn’t worked so well… so?
But on the other hand some ideas about how to avoid the problems of these things haven’t worked well, so?
I mean the idea is that you should only be voting on things that affect the people who are voting. So like people should have the unrestricted right to say, same-sex relationships because that affects only them and no one else. We shouldn’t vote on that. But when it comes to like, an energy policy that affects the whole world, then everyone should vote on it. And most decisions will be somewhere in between.
Anarchy, to me, means as much liberty and autonomy as possible for the individual, and then democratic decision making for the things that affect groups of people.
But you know people are going to then do shit like “I don’t want to have to provide services to gay people, this issue effects me” and figuring out who’s affected by what.
Well I’m assuming this is taking place under the confines of a social revolution where private property is collectivized. So if there’s like homophobes working in collective free kitchens and they refuse service to gay patrons, you would say “this person is entitled to food like anyone else is, if you don’t wanna cook for him, you can leave.”
Tru
Okay, but what about, say, issues of public health? A person’s drug habits might only affect them… or they could affect only their families… or they could affect everyone they come in contact with. How do you determine laws governing drugs? How would you call people up to vote based on the effect of a law without a massive bureaucracy?
Honestly, I think drug use is A: made more harmful by illegality, B: Often the result of shitty external circumstance C: Should be easy to get treatment for.
What effects are we talking about here?
That said I wonder how we’d handle the need for universal vaccination
I’m thinking more of stuff like smoking or drinking (or even recreational pot use), which some people do for reasons utterly unrelated to circumstance (it looks cool, social bonding, etc.) and can affect others, e.g. secondhand smoking or drunken behavior.
The smoking: E-Cigs
Drunken behavior would be covered, not drunkenness itself
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 