I have a theory about us returning to our natural state as our end game, but I haven’t put it down to paper yet. That being said, for now, it’s either all the good things industrialization has brought (along with the bad of course) or we return to the short brutish lives we lived before agriculture.

Anarchy at this point has no real way of being implemented without another state forming the moment we decide we can do better than die short tragic lives.

That just sounds like nothing will ever get done, but it would be worth simulating. Maybe it is good, who knows.

How could I profit from his death? Just asking so I know to do the short position of whatever that is since he clearly will never die. I wonder if he’s like Dorian Grey except he dies if he goes red for 12 quarters or something like that?

If might makes right a state will end up forming anyways. A populist commune is still a state. Anarchy is not possible in any sense of what one might describe as a functional society. As soon as there’s a society a state will form.

But that’s also not how chimpanzee society works anyways, since mostly it’s an alpha challenged by a younger stronger chimp who takes their place and makes sure everyone else follows the rules. They even have something like a police force.

I guess you can call it that but as I understand it bio-essentialism denies that society has any roles at all in shaping the individual. For me there’s obvious environmental pressures that force us to act a certain way in order to survive which in turn shapes us as individuals and our societies. Of course I’m talking back to the very first human societies, but all modern societies by necessity must trace their origins there. But at a certain point we started to add rules that are based on idealized humanity, divinity, which is in my view inherently hostile to human nature.

We are animals and we have no real way to discern instinct from rational. For all you know every “rational” thought you’ve ever had is actually just an instinct. How would you be able to tell that it isn’t? But that’s neither here nor there, my point is we need to form societies that are sympathetic to our biological realities, instead of societies formed on moral values sourced from anti-human religions or idealized human religions. We would be much much happier.

I know people don’t like these type of stances because they are sometimes used to exclude trans people, or to justify racism but that’s just using science to arrive at the wrong conclusions.

How would you reach consensus between hundreds of millions of people?

Look, I am sympathetic to the cause behind anarchism but it doesn’t work because it insists on ignoring biological realities. We need to look no further than our ape cousins to see how some hierarchical structure is inherent to our society. Only through the existence of a state can we reduce hierarchy and increase equality.

A stateless society wouldn’t last 10 minutes before establishing a state.

Skylar sucks, if that makes me mysoginist then I guess I am one.

They still have to sell.

Yes he would if the option is making 0 dollars. Which is the option Bytedance faces, losing one of their biggest most profitable markets when they could get a big bag or do a stock sale and continue to profit from its growth.

Also I’d like to remind you, the US is not the only country looking to ban TikTok, other western countries are eyeing it as well.

For me their malicious intentions are transparent. Hell this bill passed with full bipartisan support after congress saw the intel acquired by the alphabet agencies proving as much. When was the last that happened?

It’s gonna happen in the AT protocol I’m sure.

I don’t see how this is authoritarian, Bytedance’s bad intentions are clear. They could make money from selling the app, keep making money from it in a stock sale but yet they’d rather have 0 dollars than relinquish control of their brainrot engine. It’s clear that the CCP values it more as a cultural weapon than as a product.

I don’t need it to be my friend. I just need it to contain human violence by having a monopoly on it. You might see that as a negative, but I see it as a positive and history is obviously on my side as well, because we would have not achieved the things we have without states. You might think I lack imagination, that there are other possible systems but the truth is that all I have to do is look at the beings that are 99.99% like us to understand how we would exist without a state. We already lived like them and decided that giving the monopoly over violence to the few was better and led to more stability.

I agree with the sentiment though, humans will never be truly equal while some hold the authority to exert violence and others don’t. Once we invent God we can hand over the monopoly to it, and then we can be equal.

Yes I agree.

But the notion that no police at all is a good idea is absolutely ridiculous. I can empathize if you live in a place where the police force is fully corrupt but this is systemic, it’s the same thing that causes poor communities to have more crime. Now I could start saying that poor people are criminals and I would be flayed alive (rightfully so), but it is the exact same thing as saying that all cops are criminals or abusers. Some of them are, many of them maybe, and in some places most of them but that in itself is not a problem inherent of the concept of having someone to protect the peace and make sure that rules are followed.

It betrays a real lack of critical thought imo.

Damn generalizing a large group of people always works out great right?

I really hope you never need an officer for anything, but if you do I hope you’ll remember this conversation and maybe walk away with the right lesson.

I read lots of books. Maybe you should read more books, they help with empathy and critical thinking skills.

Not what I said at all. I said that because you both participate in society and have no option other than to participate in it you should be empathetic towards them. That’s all.

Just because you haven’t needed them yet doesn’t mean that you might need them sometime in the future. Best keep that in mind.

I don’t see any point in spreading vitriol about people anyways. They’re just like anyone else, a cog in the machine, trying to make a living. And just because some are bad, doesn’t mean that all of them are bad, and maybe we could stop more of the bad ones from popping up if we tried to understand what makes them bad. I’m willing to bet that the answer is the same as it is for any other worker that does a bad job: they’re being exploited with terrible working conditions, low pay (for the risk), high stress and peer pressure from others that strayed from their values because of the above. But I guarantee you that most cops don’t enter the force with bad intentions.

Yes surely having no police is a good idea. Leopards will definitely not eat your face.

Be nice to people, that’s all.

But I don’t see what’s productive about demonizing the police when we both know that the first thing you’ll do when someone breaks into your house or whoops your butt is call the police. Or do you think you can bring justice to perpetrators in your own terms with your own hands?

Until someone assaults you and you’re running like a bitch towards your nearest police station. We need to push for police reform, demeaning and treating them like enemies pre emptively will not help any of your causes, it only entrenches them further as tools of the state instead of protectors of the people (would you protect someone that hates you for no reason other than you are a part of the system, like everyone else?)