agamemnonymous

I think putting myself down does help me. I was raised by a narcissist intent on making me their reflection. I put myself down to counteract 18 years of narcissistic conditioning. Granted, if you weren't raised to be a narcissist you probably shouldn't do it. I'm an edge case.

I get the actual issue, but that title sounds hilariously boomer.

Thanks, I curated my vibe to repel basic-ass bitches.

Also the real big ones frequently take the back door. Training can rearrange the corridor.

My baseline circadian rhythm doesn't let me get sleepy until the sun starts coming up. In a bygone era, I would've been the guy tending the fire and watching over the camp until the early birds got up. In the modern era, night shift jobs are generally terrible. I strategically drink to fall asleep at a somewhat reasonable hour, so I can participate in modern society.

But I'll grant there may be a purely semantic argument that the system itself is immune to corruption, in the same way that a starving person doesn't have to worry about food poisoning.

Yeah that's what I was alluding to, hence "technically". You're correct that power is inevitable, and your system not prescribing power only limits its ability to moderate that emergent power.

Guess that kind of depends on whether you're going for "sublime serene harmony" or "the unfathomable might of God". I think the church kinda nailed it on both fronts, choirs for the first and pipe organs for the second.

This scene from Mr. Nobody is a great example of the first, which seems a bit more what you're going for.

Been-a-while On-the-pot

Two points:

"I have to go to a place" actually has its own semantic implications. It's a modern construction, deliberately vague to imply intentional mystery or semi-sincere shame.

"How flies the time" ironically makes the speaker sound more well-versed in English, like a stuffy old professor.

That's obtuse. Everyone bases everything on their opinion. You develop your opinion with information of the world. You're likewise basing everything on your opinion. Heliocentrists make better arguments than geocentrists in my opinion too, doesn't make that opinion wrong. Human reason is just the process of refining our opinions of the world.

I read the theory, I weighed it against the evidence of my experience, I came to conclusions. When theory conflicts with evidence, evidence takes precedence.

Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That's all been considered and there are solutions. It's nothing complicated.

Yes, exactly. How is that any different from the existing system where power given is temporary and positions are constantly rotated?

Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn't an argument against anything other than humanity

Yes, exactly. Any system without robust checks and balances is powerless against tyranny. You've got it backwards though, anarchy is by far more susceptible to tyranny because checks and balances are ultimately hierarchical. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society have spent decades laying the groundwork for their brand of tyranny, and still Trump doesn't have the power to do everything he wants because the power we set up for him has rules and limitations, checks and balances.

You're arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren't trying to figure anything out for yourself.

Untrue. I only asked for the most basic information and you didn't have anything. I've spent a great deal of thought over the last few decades trying to figure these things out for myself, aided by the hundreds of schools of political thought. I'm not saying these things and asking these questions because I couldn't be bothered to think for myself. I say these things precisely because I've figured these things out extensively, and have found this particular class of thought to be desperately lacking.

You aren't so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven't considered.

And precisely the same applies to critics of anarchist theory as well, have you read them? I've read both, and the critics have made better arguments than the proponents for 200+ years.

That's what rules are for. Robert's rules of order is a good point of reference for it for meetings, and does not require hierarchy.

That's what I mean when I say "hierarchy" is a slippery term. Robert's rules don't function without a president authorized to adjudicate.

You just want to say "it can't work" and then ignore anything else.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say "it can work" and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.

And even what you do address, is obtusely vague. "Have rules", not what those rules are or how you enforce them. "Cooperate and make decisions by consensus", not how that cooperative structure is organized, how it obstructs exploitation, or how such a functional structure differs substantially from existing "hierarchical" structures.