• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess

    Some people, sure. Lots of people, absolutely not.

    We have to make sure those rich elites

    LOL that’s rich. How do you think those people became rich elites? By taking advantage of people who make poor decisions.

    Of course there need to be regulations.

    I’m getting A LOT of mixed signals here… You’re an anarchist, in favor of regulations? How does that work?

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation

        Yes, exactly, exploiting people’s poor decisions. Like predatory loans.

        this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.

        You are intentionally taking away the wrong message.

        Anarchists are all about rules and regulations

        …what? LOL that’s the polar opposite of anarchy…

        I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it.

        Oh ok sure, let me do that:

        anarchy noun an·ar·chy ˈa-nər-kē -ˌnär-

        1a: absence of government

        b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

        c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

        2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Predatory loans is a great example

            Yes it is.

            they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices.

            Bruh have you forgotten about the global recession of 2006? There were people that had 4 and 5 houses.

            You’ve never heard of the auto loan scams?

            Never heard of the mobile home scams?

            None of those situations are improved by people taking out loans they know they can’t afford.

            Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things!

            So…how am I supposed to learn, exactly? You’re going to tell me? Wikipedia says something similar. If there’s another definition, that’s not the one I was referring to. But you knew that, didn’t you?

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Have they considered renaming the movement? It’s a bit like “believe all women” or “anti-work”. You’re shooting yourself in the foot by using words with concrete definitions that don’t mean what you’re trying to convey.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn’t too bad for it:

      Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, this reading of anarchism is placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

      Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Your definition doesn’t sound like something with lots of rules…

                Not sure why you’re so obsessed with the dictionary.

                You mean the thing that establishes a common understanding of the meaning of words? Seems pretty important to me 🤷

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The Wikipedia page seems to be generally correct. It’s a pretty broad political spectrum though with a reasonably long history. Some anarchists disagree with each other (as people in any group do) so there isn’t a perfect definition. The synopsis of the wiki is probably as good as you’ll get without reading the literature. Proudhon is probably the most famous anarchist, if you want to read up on his works.