Hospitals do not need the state. In fact hospitals are probably one of institutions to collectivise, due to the level of competence needed to actively work in one. It’s similar with electricity, industry and infrastructure maintenance. None of these things need the state. They are being maintained every day by the workers, the only thing the state does is look over their shoulder and give them money so they could function inside a capitalist economy. As an anarchist I reject both governmental oversight and capitalist economies. That’s what this post is about. It’s calling for people to start building alternatives that can function without the state.

Here are some links for further reading and watching:

• AFAQ I.3 What could the economic structure of anarchy look like?: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci3 (feel free to skim it’s quite long and dense)
• Andrewism - How anarchy works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU

This is the topic of absolute or relative morality, here is my take.

In that groups moral reference frame they would be morally right, but it wouldn’t change how I’d react. I wouldn’t agree with them or share their morals but I also know I couldn’t change their morals. Instead I would do whatever I could to remove any POC from the grasp of the group and arm them for protection. They would consider that morally wrong. I consider it morally right, because I believe everyone has the right to live. After that I’d probably try and build a barrier around them to stop them from hurting others.

At the end of the day actions matter a lot more than beliefs. It doesn’t really matter what I believe, only what actions I take.

Or to but it differently I also believe those people are morally wrong. I also believe they think they’re morally right. And as I don’t place my own opinions over others I cannot say who is right. I can only act in the way I believe is right.

To reiterate: I believe those people are wrong. They are claiming another persons right to exist and that goes against my beliefs. I would to anything I could to stop them. But I also know that’s my moral position. It’s not theirs. But it doesn’t matter, I do what I believe is right.

But in the end it doesn’t matter. My actions would not change even if I believed they were morally wrong. I still act according to my moral position. So what difference does it make whether I believe it’s the only one or one of many?

Desperately trying to phrase this in a way that makes my point come across because this is a very delicate topic, and communicating in text isn’t my strong suit.

Morality is the cultural baseline of acceptability and culture isn’t dictated by the majority. If a culture diverges it is two separate cultures. Nighter could be considered the majority. This is the point I’m trying to make, instead of having a single group of people and trying to find compromises why not just have multiple groups living their lives and cooperating when needed? Why do you need this single entity to manage these wildly different people?

But my question stands: If the majority of people in your country voted to have you killed, would you let them kill you?

Representative democracy is beholden to the majority. if they majority voted to kill you, would you just accept it and let them?

Also who are the members? what chooses who is and isn’t a member of this body that has the right to your life? A made up line in the sand? Why do I have to rely on the opinion of someone who could be half a continent away? The only people I want to be held accountable to are the ones that I have to interact with, because others don’t know me, and they shouldn’t have any say on whether or not I get to live.

Anarchy is exactly what you say: being held accountable by other members of your society. It just doesn’t try and mash millions of people with different viewpoints together and shrug when they inevitably start killing each other. It allows for dynamic formation of groups that think alike and uses the overlaps to build a network of people.

Everything a state guarantees they can take away. Do you want to give your life to the state?

Instead you could build a network of people, a community, to guarantee life and well-being of yourself and those around you. You don’t need a state to do that. In fact believing in the state will actively hamper you as you look towards it for solutions you could make yourself.

If your quest for kindness leads you to violence, remember to use violence with kindness.

The state is 100% something. It’s 100% useless and harmful. source: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionB.html#secb2 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PV02IzWpo

Good. I’m used to filling in the entire canvas but with this one I just wanted to move on so I just though. “Ok I guess it’s done”.

No. But I bet I could. After all, prisoners do it every day.

I don’t need it. I like it. While I have it I’ll use it. but I don’t need it. The only things I need are water, food, shelter, and companionship. Everything else is just extra. Good to have, but not a necessity.

read until the end of the sentence silly.

I don’t need the internet (or any computer) to be comfortable. In fact It really is a lot more bother than it’s worth. I just use it because there’s not much else to do.

Also I already have a computer. I don’t need another one. and even if I would do you know how many computers are in that 20km radius? because I’m pretty sure it’s at least 100.

By the way I’m also a programmer. I spent the entirety of my teenage life learning how to make computers do things because I think they’re neat. The internet has changed my life and given me a meaning and a purpose. It’s really useful. But I could do without it. Would probably even be happier because I would actually meet people.

Weak and strong. I’ve given a lot of thought to those words. What is strength? Is it how well hard you can punch? Because in the rule of brutality a lot of the times it’s not the ones that are physically strongest that are at the top. It’s the ones that can convince the strong ones to listen to them. The one who commands most authority. But that’s just one way of doing things. You can also build structures of mutual interdependence that cannot function unless both/all parties contribute. Deny people the right to create archic structures.

But anyway back to strength. The alt-right playbook had an episode about how conservatives think “there’s always a bigger fish” I believe it was called. It basically stated that conservatives believe in a single pyramid of power the strong are at the top and the weak at the bottom. They think this is natural. That any kind of help towards others is wrong because it could but them on the wrong level. But everyone is strong in different ways. There isn’t one single measurement of human competence. You can’t even quantify a single attribute like intelligence even though people have tried, every IQ test is nonsense as the result is mostly dependent on what skills you learned, what cultural space you’re from and how well you can pay attention.

I think that a different way of looking at this is that everyone qualities. Some people are better at one thing at other people are better at another thing. When working together everyone’s good skills offset other peoples bad skills. (This is the primary reason why I need to find someone capable of condensely writing who can understand me). Everything that you are weak at can be offset by someone who is good at it. This is how I see the world. However this goes completely against the archic view of the world which seems to be built on the idea that some people are inherently better than others and therefore deserve to lead.

I know most of this talk is uselessly philosophical. In practice the most likely outcome of chaos is that whoever is capable of projecting most fear will get the most people to follow them which in turn will make them the new ruler.

Also there is a cruel part in me that keeps saying “if they’re too weak to survive they don’t deserve to live”, but I mostly ignore that using the same reasoning as above.

Humanity was evolved enough to live in without hierarchy a couple hundred years ago. That hasn’t changed. We just have a couple of centuries of idiots telling us that they were “primitive” but what could those societies have accomplished if they weren’t mowed down in the name of PROGRESS what would a tribe look like if they had an electric generator. Would they immediately elect a president? Probably not. But they would figure out how to make a lightbulb. Technological progress is possible without hierarchy.

People seem to think that when civilisation collapses everything resets. But that’s not how it works. The building will still be here. The libraries will still exist. And it’s a lot more likely that whoever gets control of them will do their best to conserve the books. Even if the world powers nuke the shit out of themselves, enough humans will survive and at one of them will know the value of books. We can’t go back to the stone age. We can’t forget modern medicine.

I don’t want global famine and more wars but people seem insistent on creating them so I’m not going to pretend like I can stop them, I’m also not going to pretend like they (the people in power and those who allow them to remain there) somehow aren’t responsible. As for the collapse of Civilization: here’s another video youtube.com/watch?v=k0_w87J9Dj0. If you don’t want to watch. I’ll just ask you one of the main questions of the video: “what is the meaning of civilisation?”. Who does it benefit and why do we need it?

I don’t want people to suffer. Right now they are. This civilisation is making them suffer. If we could get rid of the poison of archy that plagues this civilisation without destroying it I would be grateful. But the lack of resources is not an issue. It’s a symptom of mindless consumerism and rampant capitalism. If capitalism goes, so does the scarcity.

My belief is that every person is good, kind-hearted and capable of incredible things. My belief is that greed, cruelty, and everything else that is turning this planet into hell is the fault of the systems we are raised in, the motivations we are given, and how we are treated. If this civilisation ends I won’t care. The cruelty it so efficiently creates has made sure of that. But I’m also don’t actively wish for it because I know it’ll still cause a lot of pain. The only world I’m willing to fight for is one where the power structures that allow idiots to destroy the world don’t exist.

Also I think civilisation is a lot stronger than people think. Humans are incredibly strong and capable beings. It’s going to take more than the collapse of capitalism (currently synonymous with economy) to destroy civilisation, but then again nukes exist. oh well whatever happens, happens. Not like we had any hope of seeing 2040 anyway.

I can get everything I need to comfortably live from a 20km radius, or I could If my country hadn’t outsourced clothes production to china. why does my life need to rely on a regime that’s half the planet away while destroying the said planet in the process?

Right you got me thinking so here’s my thoughts. Not looking to argue just discuss the points you’ve made.

1st paragraph:

Global economy crashing is a good thing. Like you have pointed out it is completely dependent on a non-renewable resource on top of that it is one of the biggest contributors to worldwide exploitation. It also a contributes to cultural colonialism.
more info: youtube.com/watch?v=4UJSf_oyVAo.

When it comes to farming. People will come up with solutions. I believe that farmers are competent enough that when we run out of oil they aren’t just going to go. “welp guess I starve now”. They are going to innovate and do what they can to keep going. Also swapping out an ICE motor for an electric one doesn’t seem that complicated.

Also Interesting that you didn’t mention plastics. The most used oil product in the world. I’ll be so glad when they’re finally gone.

2nd paragraph is just a continuation of the first.

3rd paragraph

The key word in this paragraph is make. We don’t really need to make any more electronics. We’ve already made enough. How many processors do you think are just sitting in some warehouse never to be used because a newer model came out. How much of those precious metals are inside cars that are going to be useless once oil runs out. We need to focus on recycling and reusing existing things and devices instead of making new ones.

4th paragraph

Water is a cycle. It doesn’t just disappear. We already recycle most of our water. Although I’m not that knowledgable on the topic so I can’t say much about it.

5th paragraph

skip.

6th paragraph

The scientific community has made those assertions with the assumption that we are going to keep doing what we’re doing. Mindless consumerism, buying and making new things, and abusing our planet. And they are right. What I and the commenter you’re replying to are (probably) saying is that the problems with resources are caused my how we live our lives and the problem disappears without capitalism, consumerism and the constant resource abuse they create. A more sustainable shift in society and economics will solve these problems

Also

I sidestepped you’re points about money, because I am an anarchist. I see capitalism and money as the precise reason for this artificial scarcity and natural abuse. Like you even said in you’re comment even if we get infinite resources in the form of asteroid mining it still won’t be distributed properly due to monopolies. Having more resources won’t fix anything because the problem is the market that distributes them being inefficient due to running entirely on profit motive. The solution is to end capitalism and when we do we are going to find that we have more than enough without needing to do asteroid mining. Where would we even get the fuel? doesn’t that require oil?

this is what doctor who does. Just like in the 80s. It has it’s ups and down, but its always changing. That’s what makes it special. The doctor regenerates, the show-runner changes and the show moves on. It’s not like the other shows that just get cancelled. It’s doctor who. It’s the longest running sci-fi show in the world.

• nc - ncurses
• mpc - music player client
• cpp - C plus plus

interesting you used grep because it’s a command that has a very clear origin.

in ed/vi the g command was used to run commands on some pattern. eg g/[regex pattern]/[command]

the p command was used to print current line so to print any line that matched the string “grep” you would do: g/grep/p.

when this was made into a seperate command it was called grep: g/re/p. using re to denote regex.

The Beatles destroyed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkR81t3lp-M