The tone of your comment kind of suggests that you don’t want an answer, but…
Voting is still an institutional structure (in the US).
We’re only allowed to vote on the issues that the government brings forth on a national or state scale. The government is literally never going to bring capitalism to the table to vote, and fascism infiltrates the system before the vote by design. Those are two things that aren’t ever going to be voted on here, at least not directly.
Unfortunately, the issues that tend to make it to the vote are popular ones that politicians attach they’re names to so that they can stay in office. That’s why it’s possible to vote on (comparatively) smaller, more popular issues like trans rights, student loan debt, health care, etc.
As a direct answer to your question, the system is never going to allow the citizens to wholly change it. Systems like these are only ever changed with blood. But it might allow the citizens to decide what it supports and pays for.
Well I hear a lot of revolutionary LARPers so I do tend to get exhausted hearing about Anarchy and how it’s the solution to all our problems. Elected politicians still have a good degree of power, we still elect them to power, so I feel like there’s still a lot more we can do within the system before burning it down becomes a serious solution.
If you want to burn down the Supreme Court, okay. Congress? Hell yeah. Two party voting? Absolutely. But the entire system, top to bottom, definitely doesn’t need a full restart. The things we want are hard, will be slow, but I’ve never thought “Man, we’d get a lot more done if there was more civil unrest.”
Anyone who says anarchy is a solution is a grade A moron. Anarchy by definition isn’t even a system. It’s just a bunch of people doing what they want. The best case scenario is that anarchy results in a bunch of smaller, more community catered systems. Which at that point it’s not anarchy anymore. Even then, every smaller system is vulnerable to the very human tendency of being swallowed up by the guy with the bigger stick.
In fact, if anything, anarchy would slip into fascism as soon as it becomes clear what coalition has the bigger guns.
So feel better knowing that anarchy larpers are really just getting their rocks off on how they imagine it would be, when in reality most everyone would just end up yeilding to the biggest guns because we fear for our lives.
You don’t seem to understand what anarchy is or what anarchist politics is. You should know what you’re talking about before you speak with confident derision.
an·ar·chy
noun
1.
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.
2.
the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.
Want to enlighten me? Because based on the raw definition, what I said is consistent. But please do explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work for 350 million people
That second definition is really weird. An organization on the basis of voluntary cooperation is a government.
Dictatorships are a form of government that isn’t based on voluntary cooperation. In fact almost no government has 100% support of it’s citizens. That’s why we have things like the police and military. You’ve just shown you don’t see any of the threats or violence involved in state craft, or are pretending not to.
Really this just highlights the absurdity of anarchy. It’s more of a libertarian myth than anything else.
What kind of libertarian are you talking about specifically? The word has become very muddied and represents very different groups and ideologies.
The tone of your comment kind of suggests that you don’t want an answer, but…
Voting is still an institutional structure (in the US).
We’re only allowed to vote on the issues that the government brings forth on a national or state scale. The government is literally never going to bring capitalism to the table to vote, and fascism infiltrates the system before the vote by design. Those are two things that aren’t ever going to be voted on here, at least not directly.
Unfortunately, the issues that tend to make it to the vote are popular ones that politicians attach they’re names to so that they can stay in office. That’s why it’s possible to vote on (comparatively) smaller, more popular issues like trans rights, student loan debt, health care, etc.
As a direct answer to your question, the system is never going to allow the citizens to wholly change it. Systems like these are only ever changed with blood. But it might allow the citizens to decide what it supports and pays for.
Well I hear a lot of revolutionary LARPers so I do tend to get exhausted hearing about Anarchy and how it’s the solution to all our problems. Elected politicians still have a good degree of power, we still elect them to power, so I feel like there’s still a lot more we can do within the system before burning it down becomes a serious solution.
If you want to burn down the Supreme Court, okay. Congress? Hell yeah. Two party voting? Absolutely. But the entire system, top to bottom, definitely doesn’t need a full restart. The things we want are hard, will be slow, but I’ve never thought “Man, we’d get a lot more done if there was more civil unrest.”
Anyone who says anarchy is a solution is a grade A moron. Anarchy by definition isn’t even a system. It’s just a bunch of people doing what they want. The best case scenario is that anarchy results in a bunch of smaller, more community catered systems. Which at that point it’s not anarchy anymore. Even then, every smaller system is vulnerable to the very human tendency of being swallowed up by the guy with the bigger stick.
In fact, if anything, anarchy would slip into fascism as soon as it becomes clear what coalition has the bigger guns.
So feel better knowing that anarchy larpers are really just getting their rocks off on how they imagine it would be, when in reality most everyone would just end up yeilding to the biggest guns because we fear for our lives.
You don’t seem to understand what anarchy is or what anarchist politics is. You should know what you’re talking about before you speak with confident derision.
Want to enlighten me? Because based on the raw definition, what I said is consistent. But please do explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work for 350 million people
That second definition is really weird. An organization on the basis of voluntary cooperation is a government.
Really this just highlights the absurdity of anarchy. It’s more of a libertarian myth than anything else.
Dictatorships are a form of government that isn’t based on voluntary cooperation. In fact almost no government has 100% support of it’s citizens. That’s why we have things like the police and military. You’ve just shown you don’t see any of the threats or violence involved in state craft, or are pretending not to.
What kind of libertarian are you talking about specifically? The word has become very muddied and represents very different groups and ideologies.