On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:03:00 -0600
Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Was there an option to not join any state?
> >
> > I suspect not, but in the context, I think that would literally have
> > been suicide. Or endless civil war as we see since then (the last
> > two years) in eastern Ukraine.
>
> I find it hard to imagine how anarchist societies could develop in our
> currently state-dominated world.
Well, the statists can simply leave the anarchists alone. Sure
it's unlikely, but it's simple.
But my point was that the referendum wasn't especially
pristine.
The soundest pro russian argument here may be that the russians
didn't raze crimea to the ground...which is something the NATO
humanitarians were more likely to do.
> Anarchist societies have survived
> through isolation, and some still do. But how does that work in places
> under active state contention?
>
> Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally
> powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science
> fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology
> that eliminates states' power monopoly.
What technologies? The only 'technology' I can imagine making a
difference would be some sort of physical shield that would
make it impossible for individuals to be physically attacked.
> Maybe it'll be the
> Singularity.
The sigularity is singular bullshit. If anything it seems
likely to replace(i. e. kill) humanity with a bunch of
motherfucking psychos like kurzweil and the rest of master-race
'elite' lunatics.
