You must log in or # to comment.
Without rulers, not without rules ;)
They’re being a ruler is the joke
That’s why you don’t follow grammar rules
Nuh uh! They’re participating in lively debate through which all parties can come to a ruling by consensus! They’re just really good at it. Um, what’s a ruler again anyways? 🤔
Who enforces the rules if they exist? There is a difference between ruler and enforcer. The fact I have to point this out is sad.
The game itself only exists while its rules are being followed. They don’t need to be externally enforced, the collective agreement to play the game implies agreeing to its rules.
That is so fucking stupid when talking about laws… Murder doesn’t magically become legal just because someone actually did it…
in the game of society, participating in society means you agree to the current “rules” of the “game” (laws). And one of those rules is murder -> jail
Yes and who puts them in jail when the murderer doesn’t want to go? An enforcer. God, you morons are being led to water and then shitting in it… Holy fucking pathetic.
I was talking about the society as we live in now, since you decided to create a metaphorical connection between board games and reality. I didn’t mean to comment on whatever else you thought people are talking about
Yeah one is a person, the other is a boot of that person
The fact you still do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic. Anarchy is literally beyond your comprehension.
Rules HAVE to exist. In some form. They HAVE to be enforced in some form. If you assume any enforcer is a boot of a “ruler”, you are literally missing the entire point.
Still dont? I just got here you dweeb
Yet you’re willing to mouth off with ignorance despite, “just getting here”. Fucking pathetic. Do better.
Cringe, honestly dude all your comments tell me you’re 14. I just joined the thread with one comment and you start hurling insults. Actually child like behavior.
You literally said anarchism is beyond my comprehension despite it being one of the hardest to define political terminologies. YOU don’t even know what it means because it means 100 different things to 100 different grouos of people
One day you’ll get a 2 in front of your age and feel embarrassed about how fucking idiotic you make yourself look all the time.
No I think you and most anarchists are.
The moment you create rules and create enforcers those enforcers become the rulers.
If they have the power to enforce rules then they have higher authority and therefore status.
Don’t get me wrong I love the concept. The problem is the concept completely ignores that humans naturally develop hierarchy. We won’t deliberately pick the roles they’ll just naturally develop over time.
Enforcers only become rulers when they’re given both immunity and the ability to make shit up.
The fact you fundamentally do not understand the difference between rule maker and rule enforcer is pathetic.
If you like the concept, then maybe understand how it’s actually supposed to function. Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist. How do you do that fairly? Yes, nature has tendencies, which is why humans create rules and enforcers to resist natural tendencies.
Humans are supposed to be GREATER than “dumb animals”, yet all I ever hear is people whining about how it it’s unnatural… NO SHIT!! That’s the entire point!!
In nature, the strong eat the weak, the end. Game over. We need to create rules and enforcers to make a better environment than is natural. Creating rules requires at least a temporary “ruler” (that doesn’t ‘have’ to be a single person). If you claim ANY ruler is ALWAYS bad, you are quite literally forgetting how not-nature works in its entirety.
Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution
Rules don’t have to be enforced if everybody makes the rules and agrees to follow them. A society built on cooperation, free association, and consent is possible.
Your conception of “natural tendencies” and “the strong eat the weak” smacks of social darwinism. Social darwinism is pseudoscientic bullshit.
You’re wrong, plain and simple
How do you keep the enforcers from becoming the rulers? Who enforces the enforcers? Other enforcers? What’s to stop them from banding together just like cops do now? Eliminating hierarchy requires many other conditions be met to not just turn into authoritarianism or something similar.
Rules HAVE to exist. Enforcers HAVE to exist.
Yes, that’s the fundamental contradiction of anarchism. Rules need rulers.
how can an enforcer not become a ruler?
By not having immunity from equitable rules and by not having the ability to just make shit up and arrest people for it?
This isn’t rocket science. Enforcers CAN be subject to rules too, regardless how much US police are not.
Then who enforces the rules
Everyone.
As opposed to disciplinary action carried out by a central authority, rule breakers just get slapped by every community member in a revolving door fashion.
Are there criminal records? Are they kept on decentralised ledgers like crypto?
You use the old ladies on the balconies. They see everything.
Or whatever means you wanna do, there’s no hard and fast rule on how the system is structured - just that hierarchies be limited and only exist as long as necessary, and authority remain as evenly distributed throughout the community as possible.
Old ladies on balconies, or any form of social enforcement of traditional laws, are known for being fair judges of character, egalitarian, impartial in their rulings, and open to people being themselves.
deleted by creator
I think you’re assuming I mean “there are no fast and hard rules, period”, when I mean “the structure of each group is mostly up to what the internal community decides is best”.
There is no system that is perfect, but we’ve had the entirety of human history to show that authoritarian systems are consistently bad for the humans, like flesh between the cogs. I’d much rather a web of communities in solidarity and negotiation, using their collective knowledge to forge onward.
There will be like an invisible hand …
How to be anarchist:
Step 1: follow the rules we all agree upon.
Step 2: don’t play (cohabitate) with people who refuse to follow the agreed upon rules.
Step 3: enjoy peaceful game (life) with people who don’t shit on their own activities just to win.
Step 1: follow the rules we all agree upon.
You’d be surprised at how difficult it is to find rules we can all agree on.
You can usually find them in the box with the rest of the game.
Those are the first thing that get lost, together with half the plastic tanks (probably eaten by the dog or your little cousin). So in the end, you make up some of the rules and use tinfoil instead of the tanks.
Btw, did you know you can get a loan from the Monopoly bank with interests at market rate? /s
I don’t want to just come back with an answer every time but we’re all in our 30s and we played the monopoly set we grew up with last summer at our parents’ place with the nieces and nephews and it still has rules and all. I think the only things missing were the original dice as there were about 4 different sets of different colors and sizes in there.
I get what you’re saying, but the metaphor kinda follows through in that when everyone at the table sits down and takes a minute to set the house rules and stuff we can all play in relative harmony.
Monopoly’s easy, it’s just like:
-
Free parking?
-
Auctions?
-
Loans?
-
Mortgaging and stuff?
and you’re pretty much good to go once you agree on those things.
-
Yeah, I also disagree with his rule #1
People often confuse anarchists (those who don’t believe in having a political ruling class) with chaos.
Damn, this is so me
Something something Engels something something justified hierarchy
Is The Onion spying on me now!?!?!?
I read
Antichrist surprisingly strict about board game rules and was confused
Satire misused.
Wdym
Satire is primarily meant to deflate the power of those that don’t deserve it, and more generally in comedy, you punch up, not down.
Lamest take
Go back to your Lego - Your mom wants her laptop back.
