Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Everyone's missing the point that states are self-organized collectives that subjugate people. What in the world does anyone think is the alternative definition of a state? That states were organized by "someone else"? It's ridiculous! England didn't make the USA. A self organizing group of people made it and they fought England and won militarily and then they kept self organizing it and then when people resisted them they applied violence to them.
Like what alternative is actually being described here? I feel like I'm reading insanity here
Presumably, an "anarchist state" would limit the things it uses its authority to enforce to only include violations of the freedom to assemle, with said authority broadly derived from large internal collectives similar to how a "libertarian state" would rely upon large businesses.
I don't think either one is at all workable, though.
A plausible postmodern state could be constructed with freely permeable borders and persons assisted in either immigration or emmigration in the interest of harmony, including banishment as a plausible punishment for wrongdoing. But implementing the would require either a strong international agreement of free migration or a genuinely limitless frontier.