Yes, but that doesn’t mean everyone gets what I want. It means I find my tiny group of teaberry enjoyers and we make our own teaberry ice cream because that’s what we like.
Democracy is everyone taking a vote and me and my comrades not getting teaberry ever because there’s not enough of us to have any power.
No, there can only be one ice cream flavor considered to represent the group as whole in you analogy for it to even be internally consistent. Making other people eat wasn’t the best phrasing, it’s more making other people decide it’s their favorite which is even harder.
Your group of teaberry enjoyers assumes that in the absence of the state your group could determine what everyone’s preferred ice cream is, not which ice cream they could actually eat. Which ice cream could be consumed by individuals or groups was never the question at hand. Instead we are asking what is considered the larger group’s preferred choice as whole which is still an open question in the absence of the state. And undoubtedly best determined by the majority of people in the absence of an ice cream that satisfies everyone.
You can already enjoy whatever ice cream you want currently. Deciding what everyone’s favorite or preferred option is not a power suddenly invested in anyone in the absence of a state. In a sense no ice cream enjoyer is an island.
No, there can only be one ice cream flavor considered to represent the group as whole in you analogy for it to even be internally consistent.
Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
The state is why I’m forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
Again, this is accomplished with state based societies currently. Minorities are protected. The actions of groups and individuals are tolerated as long they adhere to the social contract of tolerance themselves.
The question is about what a society as a whole will decide to do when faced with a choice where it can only chose one or at least not all of the available options.
What your strategy proposes is effectively succession where a larger group breaks itself into smaller groups. Each group will then face this same problem. What to do in when they have to choose some, but not all available options.
Their original identity may prove insufficient to provide a clear answer or perhaps some of the group’s identity will have changed over time. Either way this algorithm would have us divide the population for every decision where there is a disagreement until every individual was essentially isolated.
Your not getting the larger groups consensus which was supposed to be the appeal of this analogy with the proposed national ice cream flavor. Worst of all, there isn’t going to be a lot of ice cream going around if no one works together.
Your analogy tries to have its ice cream and eat it too. It starts with the promise of group consensus, but then fails to deliver on that by establishing smaller groups that deny the possibility of any consensus. And those groups can’t even produce the ice cream they think everyone should eat.
The state is why I’m forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Again, this is specifically a consequence of a fptp system which mathematically arrives at a two-party system given enough time. A state based society with ranked choice or approval voting system would allow for a wider range of options. Each of the groups created by your strategy provides one option to whoever finds themselves in such a group. So not only does the strategy fail to deliver on more options it actually delivers fewer options.
I understand the analogy but it it just seems like you have zero idea of what you’re talking about. Where did you read a version of political theory where anarchism is likened to forcing everybody to follow the same political ideology?
I am not arguing anarchy is comparable to forcing everybody to follow the same political ideology. I am arguing that it would be harder for the user to impose a consensus on everyone else if they lived in a stateless society.
The user claims they want a national ice cream flavor, but then asserts anarchy is the only way to get the national ice cream flavor they want. My point is that isn’t want anarchy does. The analogy is comparing apples and oranges. Being able to eat what ice cream you want and being able to form a larger consensus around which ice cream is best is not the same thing. It’s an attempt to shoe horn in what the user actually wants while claiming it’s anarchy.
And what that user wants is an ice cream dictatorship where the teaberry dictator enforces a teaberry consensus. Currently, in a democracy, anyone can eat whatever ice cream they want. To achieve a consensus around which ice cream is the national favorite we would hold a vote. This user wants a smaller dictatorship in the mountains where there is an imposed teaberry consensus and is willing to claim this dictatorship is anarchy in order to get it.
The analogy is a false analogy and a bait-and-switch. The lure is a promise of whatever consensus anyone wants but then swaps it out for a collection of dictatorships erroneously masquerading as anarchy.
In a stateless society, there would not be any passive consensus like a national ice cream flavor because there is no state. Everyone would have their own favorite which might happen to overlap with someone else’s or might not. Everyone could get their favorite ice cream and essentials as if they were in a state based society. There would be only active consensus where people could agree to work together to avoid existential crises like a large meteor or famine.
With anarchy you have to get yourself that flavor and make everyone else eat it too. It would still be easier to do in a democracy.
That is not anarchy.
It is based on your analogy. There wouldn’t be a national ice cream flavor in a stateless society definitionally speaking.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean everyone gets what I want. It means I find my tiny group of teaberry enjoyers and we make our own teaberry ice cream because that’s what we like.
Democracy is everyone taking a vote and me and my comrades not getting teaberry ever because there’s not enough of us to have any power.
No, there can only be one ice cream flavor considered to represent the group as whole in you analogy for it to even be internally consistent. Making other people eat wasn’t the best phrasing, it’s more making other people decide it’s their favorite which is even harder.
Your group of teaberry enjoyers assumes that in the absence of the state your group could determine what everyone’s preferred ice cream is, not which ice cream they could actually eat. Which ice cream could be consumed by individuals or groups was never the question at hand. Instead we are asking what is considered the larger group’s preferred choice as whole which is still an open question in the absence of the state. And undoubtedly best determined by the majority of people in the absence of an ice cream that satisfies everyone.
You can already enjoy whatever ice cream you want currently. Deciding what everyone’s favorite or preferred option is not a power suddenly invested in anyone in the absence of a state. In a sense no ice cream enjoyer is an island.
Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
The state is why I’m forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Again, this is accomplished with state based societies currently. Minorities are protected. The actions of groups and individuals are tolerated as long they adhere to the social contract of tolerance themselves.
The question is about what a society as a whole will decide to do when faced with a choice where it can only chose one or at least not all of the available options.
What your strategy proposes is effectively succession where a larger group breaks itself into smaller groups. Each group will then face this same problem. What to do in when they have to choose some, but not all available options.
Their original identity may prove insufficient to provide a clear answer or perhaps some of the group’s identity will have changed over time. Either way this algorithm would have us divide the population for every decision where there is a disagreement until every individual was essentially isolated.
Your not getting the larger groups consensus which was supposed to be the appeal of this analogy with the proposed national ice cream flavor. Worst of all, there isn’t going to be a lot of ice cream going around if no one works together.
Your analogy tries to have its ice cream and eat it too. It starts with the promise of group consensus, but then fails to deliver on that by establishing smaller groups that deny the possibility of any consensus. And those groups can’t even produce the ice cream they think everyone should eat.
Again, this is specifically a consequence of a fptp system which mathematically arrives at a two-party system given enough time. A state based society with ranked choice or approval voting system would allow for a wider range of options. Each of the groups created by your strategy provides one option to whoever finds themselves in such a group. So not only does the strategy fail to deliver on more options it actually delivers fewer options.
Teaberry ain’t gonna ever win even in a ranked choice system. It’s just too unpopular.
I’m too tired and drunk to read the rest of it.
To summarize, you don’t want ice cream anarchy, you want an ice cream dictator who agrees with you.
Lol dude wtf are you even talking about
Political science, social theory, and ice cream.
I understand the analogy but it it just seems like you have zero idea of what you’re talking about. Where did you read a version of political theory where anarchism is likened to forcing everybody to follow the same political ideology?
I am not arguing anarchy is comparable to forcing everybody to follow the same political ideology. I am arguing that it would be harder for the user to impose a consensus on everyone else if they lived in a stateless society.
The user claims they want a national ice cream flavor, but then asserts anarchy is the only way to get the national ice cream flavor they want. My point is that isn’t want anarchy does. The analogy is comparing apples and oranges. Being able to eat what ice cream you want and being able to form a larger consensus around which ice cream is best is not the same thing. It’s an attempt to shoe horn in what the user actually wants while claiming it’s anarchy.
And what that user wants is an ice cream dictatorship where the teaberry dictator enforces a teaberry consensus. Currently, in a democracy, anyone can eat whatever ice cream they want. To achieve a consensus around which ice cream is the national favorite we would hold a vote. This user wants a smaller dictatorship in the mountains where there is an imposed teaberry consensus and is willing to claim this dictatorship is anarchy in order to get it.
The analogy is a false analogy and a bait-and-switch. The lure is a promise of whatever consensus anyone wants but then swaps it out for a collection of dictatorships erroneously masquerading as anarchy.
In a stateless society, there would not be any passive consensus like a national ice cream flavor because there is no state. Everyone would have their own favorite which might happen to overlap with someone else’s or might not. Everyone could get their favorite ice cream and essentials as if they were in a state based society. There would be only active consensus where people could agree to work together to avoid existential crises like a large meteor or famine.