Let me get this straight: Individuals cannot be trusted because they are sociopathic. Therefore, they should not be ruled over. Therefore, we need a rule to prevent rulership. Am I following correctly so far?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @puellavulnerata
Oh good lord. Rulership is a matter of top-down domination. Sure, bottom up resistance to anyone acquiring a position of rulership creates a norm -- just as literally anything creates a norm -- but it doesn't create a dynamic of rulership.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rechelon @puellavulnerata
So you want the rule that nobody rules enforced by every individual? What makes you trust that individuals are going to do the right thing, if they suck and are sociopathic?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @puellavulnerata
Good lord, it's not a "rule". Anarchists want to make the cost of attempts to dominate one another too high for anyone to be able to. One traditional example of this is popularizing things like guns so that attempts to rule over minorities become incredibly costly to the ruler.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @rechelon @puellavulnerata
Has this experiment not been undertaken countless times? Stability seems to require a monopoly on violence. Until then, groups with guns will fight against groups with fewer guns until power consolidates.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @puellavulnerata
So if this has instead moved on to "explain anarchism 101 to me lel" I'm out, you can go do your own reading.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rechelon @puellavulnerata
ah the beautiful pattern “let me educate you about the universal norm that my cult discovered” + “how dare you doubt my self evident reasoning, go read the current version of the sacred scriptures, it is not my duty to fix your insufficient indoctrination”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @rechelon
It is sincerely not my intention to insult. I just don’t understand
@rechelon‘s argument here. It is frustrating if you argue your way around game theoretic dynamics by a blanket reference to a body of political ideas that almost nobody accepts. I am sorry I reacted at all.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The distinction between rules and rulership is not problematic to Gillis' philosophy. It's also a rather elementary one. It's okay if you're unfamiliar but it's also okay if he'd rather not tutor on this topic.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
(It's ok, Andreⓐ and me just unfollowed each other, so I won't feel provoked to respond with unwashed questions to sacred teachings, and she won't feel insulted by my ignorance of anarchism101.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.