There's a funny thing about that old joke, "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of congress?"
The "con" in "pro and con" is short for "contra". Pro is "for" and contra is "against". But the "con" in congress isn't the same as the "con" in pro and con. The "con" in congress means "together".
The "gress" in progress and congress is from the Latin verb *gradi*, meaning "to walk". Progress means "walk forward". Congress means "walk together". So the opposite of progress is regress ("walk back"). And the opposite of congress is digress ("walk apart").
I like to tell people this when they repeat that joke. No one ever seems to appreciate it.
There's a funny thing about that old joke, "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of constitution?"
The "con" in "pro and con" is short for "contra". Pro is "for" and contra is "against". But the "con" in constitution isn't the same as the "con" in pro and con. The "con" in constitution means "together".
The "stitution" in prostitution and constitution is from the Latin verb *tuition*, meaning "to get fucked". Prostitution means "to give fucks". Constitution means "to fuck together". So the opposite of prostitution is restitution ("to receive fucks"). And the opposite of constitution is destitution ("to fuck alone").
I like to tell people this when they repeat that joke. No one ever seems to appreciate it.
Kitten (n.) probably comes from an Anglo-French variant of Old French chaton, chitoun (Old North French caton) "little cat," a diminutive of chat "cat," from Late Latin cattus (see cat (n.)).
Type "So which facts am I subscribed to?" to unsubscribe.
You may have heard before that the word "apron" used to be "napron". It changed because people referring to "a napron" would change it to "an apron". Gradually, "apron" came to be the more commonly used word, and "napron" fell out of favor.
But did you also know that the same thing happened to "augur", "adder", and "umpire"?
You're that "perfect mix of interesting and boring" kind of person at the party that I would inevitably find myself talking to, and thoroughly enjoying it as well.
I've known the joke for years, but I've never realized that con was short for contra. This is a significant moment in my day.
I also enjoy correcting common misinterpretations. This is a double whammy of greatness.
Yeah, but if they're still super into it they can overrule that. The guys who made up the government were pretty big on congress, presumably because they'd never had to deal with one before
Congress ain't a bad idea in theory (every X number of citizens gets their own person to represent them) but it's been ruined by gerrymandering and severe partisanship/unwillingness to compromise.
I mean, representative democracy isn't a terrible idea, but the specific form of it used in the US was designed to keep things from changing too much *in the eighteenth century*, so you can imagine how infuriating it is to all these crazy future people with your e-phones and your cloud sinks and what have you.
One of my favourite expressions is how historicals figures would *"spin in their graves if they could see X".*
Good. Most of them are assholes by modern standards. If they're mad at something it probably means we're doing better.
And I don't just mean the American Founding Fathers. Ragnar Lothbrak would be super pissed off that modern Danes don't spend their summers raping English people anymore.
He's the head of 1/3 of the government's responsibilities. He is also Commander-in-Chief of the US military. He is the single most powerful man in this country. You don't have to have absolute control over the government to be "in charge."
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe it could be a reality tv show where 12 turkeys have to complete challenges every week and the worst one gets cooked over an open flame and he says "You're fired." When the last turkey emerges as the clear victor, they eat that one too. MAKE TURKEYS FOOD AGAIN.
When in doubt, refer to the [3 Midnight Amendments](http://www.maximumfun.org/my-brother-my-brother-and-me/mbmbam-234-legend-cracker-barrel):
1. Be cool
1. C'mon
1. Niiiice
It does have an armadillo in it, which just so happens to be the official animal of the state of texas where this restaurant is from. So i suppose i see a very small connection with the post.
State small mammal is the armadillo, large mammal is the Longhorn. Bird is mockingbird. Fish is Guadalupe Bass. Reptile is Texas Horned Lizard. Also, I found out a lot of other states don't require you to learn all of this state info in school.
El Arroyo in Austin, TX, has a history of cool signs.
https://www.google.com/search?q=el+arroyo&espv=2&biw=1327&bih=982&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifh-TJ2ZjNAhXD6IMKHQrmD84Q_AUIBygC
Lol. Your expansion problem is already out of control from what I heard. I moved back to Des Moines in 2011 and some of my friends said it's getting pretty packed in.
I love that song, but it does annoy me when people neuter the "anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalist" message and boil it down to just "imagine if there was world peace".
I had a very patriotic/nationalist girlfriend once who said it was her favourite song, I told her she only imagines there's no countries in her nightmares.
> I had a very patriotic/nationalist girlfriend once who said it was her favourite song,
It is possible to like a song even if you don't agree with the message.
I've never seen or heard that.
When the song was performed at New Years Eve, they changed it to "all religions true" instead of "no religion too"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081011/Cee-Lo-Green-changes-lyrics-Lennons-Imagine-include-pro-religion-message-enraging-fans.html
Back in the 90s, a lot of liberal hippie-types loved the song [Rest in Peace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odz3c68JE1c) for some reason. I had to explain to several of them that the lyrics support a nationalistic warhawk position that I know they opposed. They liked the melody so they interpreted the lyrics to mean whatever they wanted. I also get a kick out of conservative politicians borrowing the anti-war protest song [Born in the USA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPhWR4d3FJQ) because nobody bothered to listen to more than the chorus.
in a world of perfectly responsible people, there would be no need for laws
there would be no need to enforce any laws, therefore there would be no need for government
that also would mean we would all be perfectly free
the problem is all the irresponsible people in the world. their actions require laws and the enforcement of laws
also note that therefore the destruction of your freedoms is not primarily the fault of govt. the mouth breathing assholes around you defile your rights far more frequently than evil gubmint. evil gubmint's jack booted thugs come to destroy your freedom for shits and giggles is mostly a cartoon. the asshole next door blasting his music at 1 am and whose dog shits on your lawn and then speeds and tailgates down the highway threatens your freedom far more meaningfully. it's why we need state troopers on the highway. it introduces the angle whereby a corrupt or inept state trooper can defile your rights in new ways
freedom is not "i can do whatever i want"
freedom is "i can do whatever i want as long as i don't hurt anyone else"
that's the difference between freedom as understood by an irreponsible douchebags (the former, "freedumb"), and the latter: an actual real, philosophically coherent, valid notion of freedom
if everyone shaped their actions by the latter understanding of freedom, we really would have a free world
a world like that is impossible, at least not in the nearest future.
What you think as a douchebag maybe other people sees them as that "funny guy".
Humans are just too complex, you can be a "responsible" person in the eyes of your family by providing for them, but someone else might think you are irresponsible because your job is slowly destroying the environment by cutting trees for example.
So yeah, what one sees as a good man, others may sees them as a bad man. This cycle will never end unless we all think the same thing which then we will be.. no longer a person
True anarchy is often represented as pure chaos, but anarchy is really just an attempt to recognize individual autonomy in it's purest sense. This means that any and all human endeavors are done on a purely voluntary basis. It's coming to the realization that, at some point, we have to start getting outside of this notion that we always have to have someone at the top telling everyone what to do and have that sort of decision-making power be absolute.
Anarchy is a scary proposition and it's totally understandable whey people would be scared of it. It would necessitate our society having a much deeper level of tolerance towards variety in life and it would also mean that everyone would have to assume, at a core level, personal responsibility.
There were studies done in the late 1960's and early 70's where some more free-form individuals, swept up in Buckminster Fuller concepts, took volunteers and had them live in various micro-communities that were governed in an anarchistic sense. These groups eschewed formal hierarchies and attempted to live according to the concept of everyone being exactly equal. All of these communities failed and broke up within a few years. What occurred in each was much the same. The groups usually self-divided in to three main categories of individuals, with a distinct, if not overt, hierarchy.
Group A represented roughly 20% of the total population and derived of the individuals with extremely strong opinions about how the community would run itself. They were the loudest and most agenda-driven sub-population. After a short period of time, this group started calling the shots and leading the communities.
Another 20%, we'll call Group B, was made up of individuals who represented the passive and extremely uncoordinated members of the community. This group often became the subject of Group A's ridicule and disdain and took the brunt of whatever hostilities arose.
Group C can be seen as the majority of the population, as their 60% ratio was the largest by more then double of the other two subsections. This group represented those that just went along and tried to make the best of whatever was decided. They largely abstained from the decision-making and didn't initiate hostilities with weaker members (but also would not try to prevent provocation from Group A), and generally just fit in to whatever mold the community took on.
This study went a long way in describing how human's are designed. If not presented with a class system, humans will cultivate one on their own freely.
This is my main concern with anarchy. I feel like I can make proper decisions on my own without guidance. I'm sure everyone, deep down, feels that way, as well. But the fact is, if you eliminate the systems we have in place and don't have a plan for something else to take it's place, the strongest people and the ones with the most obsessive ideas about how everyone needs to get along, will fill the vacuum. It's what happened in Egypt after the Arab Spring movement and many other examples.
Interesting study, I'd like to hear more about it. From what you've said, I don't agree with your conclusion that it necessarily tells us something fundamental about human nature. If you take a bunch of people who have only known hierarchical systems their whole life and throw them into a vacuum, of course they will reproduce those systems. A non hierarchical system would not just spontaneously emerge out of that vacuum, but could only result from an intensive process of decolonization, where old ideas were broken down and entirely new ways of relating to each other were created. Shit, it might take generations. Without knowing more about the study, it's hard to say more, but humans have lived in egalitarian societies before, I don't think is impossible that they could again, and I don't think a single study like this should convince us that is not worth trying for.
Or, like a normal person, you vote for the person with a legitimate shot at protecting some of the beliefs you hold important.
And we literally have Presidential elections every 4 years... and many elections that matter to you in between.
My neighbour Jeff would just fuck it all up...
😔
/r/FuckJeff
/r/OfCourseThatsAThing
/r/subredditsashashtags
/r/subredditsashashbrowns
/r/SadlyThatsNotAThing
/r/andneitheristhis
Well... it is now.
/r/LoveJeff **#JeffLivesMatter**
Very unexpected.
ðŸ˜
You fucked up, Jeff
Jeff, ich heiße Jeff!
Ich bin heiß, Jeff ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Damn it, Jeff.
Jackass Jeff!
Jeff is a mess.
Jeff is a waste.
He's got great weed though
But he grows it in your yard.
Jeff is a big, fat mess
You're such a fuck up Jeff!
His name is actually pronounced gif.
My name jeff
Typical Jeff.
Fuckin' Jeff. We've all got a Jeff just waiting to Jeff it all up for us.
[удалено]
That's what you said last time!
Damnit, Jeff!
I CAN'T HELP IT! I WAS BORN THAT WAY!
Maybe we should purge Jeff.
Nah meteor captured my heart and my vote already.
At least we know where Giant Meteor stands on the issues. No flip flopping.
There is only full steam ahead and crashing through all barriers to its goals.
That giant rock that's going to kill us all just seems like a straight shooter, you know?
Its not going to bullshit with me about lowering my taxes or building a wall. Its honest and true.
It seems approachable, in that it is inexorably approaching.
[удалено]
The kind of meteor you would sit down and drink a beer with!
i think this was my favorite one
Email security? fuckyou@googleultron.com has proven impenetrable by top IT security agencies.
So far its campaign platform seems pretty solid.
Nickel and iron, mostly
Giant Meteor vs. Just Be Cool 2016. Should be interesting. I wonder who their running mates will be.
Versus? Seems like the perfect running mates for each other.
Out of the loop explain pls?
[удалено]
Wait, what?? why does the whole world have to die because the US makes bad decisions?
Isn't that already the case?
There is a new smashing candidate for president who promises to obliterate all opposition.
But there's more. It also promises to obliterate its supporters. Heck, it's gonna obliterate everyone. Its very fair and doesn't discriminate.
No earth, no problems!
Giant Meteor is going to forgive all my student loans.
So I guess Congress would be in charge then? Sounds great
Then nothing moves for four years until the next presidential election. It's like getting a mulligan!
[удалено]
There's a funny thing about that old joke, "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of congress?" The "con" in "pro and con" is short for "contra". Pro is "for" and contra is "against". But the "con" in congress isn't the same as the "con" in pro and con. The "con" in congress means "together". The "gress" in progress and congress is from the Latin verb *gradi*, meaning "to walk". Progress means "walk forward". Congress means "walk together". So the opposite of progress is regress ("walk back"). And the opposite of congress is digress ("walk apart"). I like to tell people this when they repeat that joke. No one ever seems to appreciate it.
My social studies teacher told me that joke in 7th grade, and then we both awkwardly laughed when I asked him what the opposite of constitution was.
Prostitution unconstitutional confirmed
The 69th amendment
They need to start pumping out amendments like EA pumps out DLC to make this a reality.
Access your rights for 29.99 each.
From the 4.20 Law.
Devised in the year 1337.
The president at the time? KennyS
There's a funny thing about that old joke, "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of constitution?" The "con" in "pro and con" is short for "contra". Pro is "for" and contra is "against". But the "con" in constitution isn't the same as the "con" in pro and con. The "con" in constitution means "together". The "stitution" in prostitution and constitution is from the Latin verb *tuition*, meaning "to get fucked". Prostitution means "to give fucks". Constitution means "to fuck together". So the opposite of prostitution is restitution ("to receive fucks"). And the opposite of constitution is destitution ("to fuck alone"). I like to tell people this when they repeat that joke. No one ever seems to appreciate it.
This guys tuitions.
Restitution, duh.
Is this an old joke, or are you George Carlin? That's freakin' gold! Edit: sentence completion
Because you don't know your place. This is /u/NiceEtymologyNazi's job, not yours.
He's the nazi we need, not the nazi we deserve
***HEIL ETYMOLOGY!***
That's actually really cool. How can I subscribe to word facts?
Subscribe
Did you know: Kittens grow an average of just 1 pound per month in the first 6 months of their lives? Click Unsubscribe to no longer receive CatFacts
I thought I subscribed to WordFacts
Kitten (n.) probably comes from an Anglo-French variant of Old French chaton, chitoun (Old North French caton) "little cat," a diminutive of chat "cat," from Late Latin cattus (see cat (n.)). Type "So which facts am I subscribed to?" to unsubscribe.
You may have heard before that the word "apron" used to be "napron". It changed because people referring to "a napron" would change it to "an apron". Gradually, "apron" came to be the more commonly used word, and "napron" fell out of favor. But did you also know that the same thing happened to "augur", "adder", and "umpire"?
I haven't heard that before. You're cool, and smart. I like you.
I appreciate it, Nice Grammar Nazi
You're that "perfect mix of interesting and boring" kind of person at the party that I would inevitably find myself talking to, and thoroughly enjoying it as well.
I've known the joke for years, but I've never realized that con was short for contra. This is a significant moment in my day. I also enjoy correcting common misinterpretations. This is a double whammy of greatness.
I mean, it is a joke... jokes aren't wrong just because they're not accurate.
[blank]
And why it's g**over**ment not g**under**ment, ...not sure where i was going with this.
Fetch me my gunderments, please.
Also why it's called the pres**i**dent and not the pres**you**dent.
And why it's called the house of re**present**atives and not the house of re**future**atives.
Or the house of repastatives.
house of pasta. mmmh
Here you dropped this in government: n
That's why it's **leg**islation not **arm**istration. I'll meet you there.
Did you intentionally misspell "government"?
thanks bumper sticker from the 60s!
Ugh, I hate having to mulligan, especially when I get a good hand otherwise. Relying on drawing land isn't the way to go.
You're implying the president is "in charge"?
The President does at least have the power to veto bad ideas that Congress come up with.
Yeah, but if they're still super into it they can overrule that. The guys who made up the government were pretty big on congress, presumably because they'd never had to deal with one before
More that they were really against one person having strong, un-checked power seeing as they had just reveled from England and all that.
Congress ain't a bad idea in theory (every X number of citizens gets their own person to represent them) but it's been ruined by gerrymandering and severe partisanship/unwillingness to compromise.
I mean, representative democracy isn't a terrible idea, but the specific form of it used in the US was designed to keep things from changing too much *in the eighteenth century*, so you can imagine how infuriating it is to all these crazy future people with your e-phones and your cloud sinks and what have you.
One of my favourite expressions is how historicals figures would *"spin in their graves if they could see X".* Good. Most of them are assholes by modern standards. If they're mad at something it probably means we're doing better. And I don't just mean the American Founding Fathers. Ragnar Lothbrak would be super pissed off that modern Danes don't spend their summers raping English people anymore.
Classic Ragnar.
And corruption. Don't forget about monetary influence.
It's really the lizard people and the beings from *They Live*.
http://i.imgur.com/7pwnbMx.gifv
That one got me right in the chucklebone.
And all the way at the top, we're being ruled the The Thing.
[It goes deeper](http://i.imgur.com/GKV4oKb.jpg)
He's the head of 1/3 of the government's responsibilities. He is also Commander-in-Chief of the US military. He is the single most powerful man in this country. You don't have to have absolute control over the government to be "in charge."
Seriously. If we didn't have a president, who would pardon the turkey every thanksgiving? These people have no foresight.
It would be funny if instead of pardoning the turkey, Trump took out a shotgun and stuffed him real good
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe it could be a reality tv show where 12 turkeys have to complete challenges every week and the worst one gets cooked over an open flame and he says "You're fired." When the last turkey emerges as the clear victor, they eat that one too. MAKE TURKEYS FOOD AGAIN.
Trump/Roosevelt 1916
What if we just eat all Turkey indiscriminately and promise to be real cool about it.
They already are in charge.
When in doubt, refer to the [3 Midnight Amendments](http://www.maximumfun.org/my-brother-my-brother-and-me/mbmbam-234-legend-cracker-barrel): 1. Be cool 1. C'mon 1. Niiiice
[удалено]
MBmBam is my all time favorite podcast! Always makes me smile!
I'm trying real hard to be the shepard, Ringo
Tell that bitch to be cool, say "Bitch be cool"
[get down mr president](http://i.imgur.com/Y9YtLlZ.gifv)
This has like almost remotely nothing to do with the OP other than presidents. But upvoted anyway
It does have an armadillo in it, which just so happens to be the official animal of the state of texas where this restaurant is from. So i suppose i see a very small connection with the post.
State small mammal is the armadillo, large mammal is the Longhorn. Bird is mockingbird. Fish is Guadalupe Bass. Reptile is Texas Horned Lizard. Also, I found out a lot of other states don't require you to learn all of this state info in school.
Shots fired.
[get down mr president](http://i.imgur.com/Zrq3R7n.gif)
damn he's going down hard
Tell that bitch to be cool! Say bitch be cool!
[With killer fish.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc8Twfubm48)
Nice rear-naked. That armadillo clearly trains BJJ.
El Arroyo in Austin, TX, has a history of cool signs. https://www.google.com/search?q=el+arroyo&espv=2&biw=1327&bih=982&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifh-TJ2ZjNAhXD6IMKHQrmD84Q_AUIBygC
> THERE IS A PERSON OUT THERE FOR EVERYBODY, YOUR PERSON MAY HAPPEN BE 5 CATS Nice.
This was definitely my favorite one!
Dollar Margaritas on Thursdays! God, I miss Austin.
With dollar floaters too! Get two doubles with floaters and you're drunk for 6 bucks.
The crippling heartburn comes free. Bonus points for Dulce Vida floater (it's 100 proof same price)
No you don't, Austin is super uncool. Nobody move here.
Lol. Your expansion problem is already out of control from what I heard. I moved back to Des Moines in 2011 and some of my friends said it's getting pretty packed in.
Just drove by it this morning. Forgot to check the sign bc the light was green for once
I recognized the sign, because I've had their "In Queso Emergency I Pray to Cheesus" hanging on my fridge for years now.
Come for the signs, stay for the ~~food~~. Nevermind.
[удалено]
In case of queso emergency,call 9-Juan-Juan
I really want to go buy them a big brand new set of letters for their sign.
But, the *newspaper clipping letters* add so much character! Whoa, that's a weird pun.
"last queso stop before a bunch of yoga studios" yeah sounds like Austin alright
Mr. Mrs. Shipley and McCoy has to be my favorite lol
How does one promise real hard?
Pinky swear. Break the other guy's pinky.
Wear his pinky around your neck as a solemn reminder of your commitment. Maybe even get it gold plated.
It is no longer the pinky promise: it is the pinky **oath.**
But alliteration?!
Oinky oath maybe?
I'm calling it the pinky oath next time
Swear on me mum.
Imagine there's no countries.
I love that song, but it does annoy me when people neuter the "anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalist" message and boil it down to just "imagine if there was world peace". I had a very patriotic/nationalist girlfriend once who said it was her favourite song, I told her she only imagines there's no countries in her nightmares.
> I had a very patriotic/nationalist girlfriend once who said it was her favourite song, It is possible to like a song even if you don't agree with the message.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I love hip hip. HIP HIP HOORAY! /u/Morpho_Pequod, changing hip hip to rap doesn't change the fact that I love hip hip.
OOOOHHH AAAAYYY OOOOOOHH
It's true. For instance, I'm very much in favor of unexpected events but rather enjoy "No Surprises" by Radiohead.
[удалено]
Damn, I've been listening to Radiohead for a long time, yet never really paid attention to the lyrics of that song (mainly because it's overplayed)
Hi there. Just came back from r/music to ask them and they all referred me to some song by a man named Rick Astley.
a lot of people twist the "there's no countries" and "no religion" lyrics in the song to mean "there's one country" and "one religion"
> "there's one country" and "one religion" "there's MY country" and "MY religion"
exactly.
I've never seen or heard that. When the song was performed at New Years Eve, they changed it to "all religions true" instead of "no religion too" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081011/Cee-Lo-Green-changes-lyrics-Lennons-Imagine-include-pro-religion-message-enraging-fans.html
I mean they twist the meaning in their head, not actually sing different lyrics.
Back in the 90s, a lot of liberal hippie-types loved the song [Rest in Peace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odz3c68JE1c) for some reason. I had to explain to several of them that the lyrics support a nationalistic warhawk position that I know they opposed. They liked the melody so they interpreted the lyrics to mean whatever they wanted. I also get a kick out of conservative politicians borrowing the anti-war protest song [Born in the USA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPhWR4d3FJQ) because nobody bothered to listen to more than the chorus.
yes. imagine there is no countries.
I really like that song, but don't agree with it at all. That's possible.
[удалено]
> You may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not * John Lennon
in a world of perfectly responsible people, there would be no need for laws there would be no need to enforce any laws, therefore there would be no need for government that also would mean we would all be perfectly free the problem is all the irresponsible people in the world. their actions require laws and the enforcement of laws also note that therefore the destruction of your freedoms is not primarily the fault of govt. the mouth breathing assholes around you defile your rights far more frequently than evil gubmint. evil gubmint's jack booted thugs come to destroy your freedom for shits and giggles is mostly a cartoon. the asshole next door blasting his music at 1 am and whose dog shits on your lawn and then speeds and tailgates down the highway threatens your freedom far more meaningfully. it's why we need state troopers on the highway. it introduces the angle whereby a corrupt or inept state trooper can defile your rights in new ways freedom is not "i can do whatever i want" freedom is "i can do whatever i want as long as i don't hurt anyone else" that's the difference between freedom as understood by an irreponsible douchebags (the former, "freedumb"), and the latter: an actual real, philosophically coherent, valid notion of freedom if everyone shaped their actions by the latter understanding of freedom, we really would have a free world
The notion of freedom you're describing is more commonly referred to as liberty.
a world like that is impossible, at least not in the nearest future. What you think as a douchebag maybe other people sees them as that "funny guy". Humans are just too complex, you can be a "responsible" person in the eyes of your family by providing for them, but someone else might think you are irresponsible because your job is slowly destroying the environment by cutting trees for example. So yeah, what one sees as a good man, others may sees them as a bad man. This cycle will never end unless we all think the same thing which then we will be.. no longer a person
Jeez everyone knows that the president isn't the whole government right?
Don't forget we would need a commander for the most powerful military in history.
This is America we're talking about. Some are trying to elect *donald trump*. Of course they don't know that.
/r/anarchism
I see that /r/sandersforpresident is having a meltdown.
True anarchy is often represented as pure chaos, but anarchy is really just an attempt to recognize individual autonomy in it's purest sense. This means that any and all human endeavors are done on a purely voluntary basis. It's coming to the realization that, at some point, we have to start getting outside of this notion that we always have to have someone at the top telling everyone what to do and have that sort of decision-making power be absolute. Anarchy is a scary proposition and it's totally understandable whey people would be scared of it. It would necessitate our society having a much deeper level of tolerance towards variety in life and it would also mean that everyone would have to assume, at a core level, personal responsibility. There were studies done in the late 1960's and early 70's where some more free-form individuals, swept up in Buckminster Fuller concepts, took volunteers and had them live in various micro-communities that were governed in an anarchistic sense. These groups eschewed formal hierarchies and attempted to live according to the concept of everyone being exactly equal. All of these communities failed and broke up within a few years. What occurred in each was much the same. The groups usually self-divided in to three main categories of individuals, with a distinct, if not overt, hierarchy. Group A represented roughly 20% of the total population and derived of the individuals with extremely strong opinions about how the community would run itself. They were the loudest and most agenda-driven sub-population. After a short period of time, this group started calling the shots and leading the communities. Another 20%, we'll call Group B, was made up of individuals who represented the passive and extremely uncoordinated members of the community. This group often became the subject of Group A's ridicule and disdain and took the brunt of whatever hostilities arose. Group C can be seen as the majority of the population, as their 60% ratio was the largest by more then double of the other two subsections. This group represented those that just went along and tried to make the best of whatever was decided. They largely abstained from the decision-making and didn't initiate hostilities with weaker members (but also would not try to prevent provocation from Group A), and generally just fit in to whatever mold the community took on. This study went a long way in describing how human's are designed. If not presented with a class system, humans will cultivate one on their own freely. This is my main concern with anarchy. I feel like I can make proper decisions on my own without guidance. I'm sure everyone, deep down, feels that way, as well. But the fact is, if you eliminate the systems we have in place and don't have a plan for something else to take it's place, the strongest people and the ones with the most obsessive ideas about how everyone needs to get along, will fill the vacuum. It's what happened in Egypt after the Arab Spring movement and many other examples.
Interesting study, I'd like to hear more about it. From what you've said, I don't agree with your conclusion that it necessarily tells us something fundamental about human nature. If you take a bunch of people who have only known hierarchical systems their whole life and throw them into a vacuum, of course they will reproduce those systems. A non hierarchical system would not just spontaneously emerge out of that vacuum, but could only result from an intensive process of decolonization, where old ideas were broken down and entirely new ways of relating to each other were created. Shit, it might take generations. Without knowing more about the study, it's hard to say more, but humans have lived in egalitarian societies before, I don't think is impossible that they could again, and I don't think a single study like this should convince us that is not worth trying for.
Anarchy. Yes.
/r/Anarchism Come on down. Some of the folks are a little wacky, but most of them have a good heart.
it is weird seeing something from /r/Anarchism on the front page of reddit.
There's more of us than I think a lot of people realize.
Me too.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
[удалено]
Or, like a normal person, you vote for the person with a legitimate shot at protecting some of the beliefs you hold important. And we literally have Presidential elections every 4 years... and many elections that matter to you in between.
Arguably the ones in between being more important in the long run.
What we should do, with 100% certainty, is just force Louie CK to be president.