Liberalism is the dominant ideology enforced by states of the world. It is the establishment, the status quo. Agreeing with it is agreeing with authority. More than that, though, liberalism requires authority to function. So to say you reject authority, yet are a liberal, makes no sense.
Nobody has any idea what anarchy is. The one tenet of the philosophy is that any time someone tries to define it in any concrete way so that it can be discussed and criticized the anarchists all come out of the woodwork to say “no, that’s not it.” They never say what it is, though, because it isn’t anything.
I can’t imagine the depths of arrogance and ignorance it requires to say that a political theory centuries in the making, with countless theorists writing lengthy tomes on the subject, has nothing to it.
I can quite easily summarise what it is, though. People self organising with no hierarchy. If you want it even simpler, anarchy is not having a ruler or leader; you can glean that just from the construction of the word, “an” (without) ,“archy” (rule), literally, “without a ruler”. There you go! I very much doubt you’ve talked to any anarchists, if you’ve never heard any say that. If you have, you certainly didn’t listen.
Mikhail Bakunin
Noam Chomsky
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Emma Goldman
Peter Kropotkin
Just a few names for you to look into, in the field that has no consistent theory, because no one knows what it is.
You’ve never seen a group of adolescents punks? Have ever been outside?
Adolescent punks have zero idea what anarchy is. They just hate their dads
Actually, they have a pretty good idea of the core principle of “rejecting authority”. That’s the natural state of the adolescent already.
How you would get an adolescent to naturally align with capitalism though, is a mystery for me. Seems like shit lemmygrad would make up.
My rejection of authority is why I’m a liberal.
That makes zero sense
No, it makes total sense. What are you missing?
Liberalism is the dominant ideology enforced by states of the world. It is the establishment, the status quo. Agreeing with it is agreeing with authority. More than that, though, liberalism requires authority to function. So to say you reject authority, yet are a liberal, makes no sense.
Bring “anti-authority” doesn’t mean “disliking ideas because they’re popular.” That’s a middle-school-ass take.
Yeah, which is why that isn’t what I said. :)
Because we’re indoctrinated into it from birth. You have to put up active efforts to ignore or critically examine it, in order to believe differently.
Also, hating your dad isn’t rejecting authority, and rejecting authority isn’t anarchism. It’s pretty close, though.
Nobody has any idea what anarchy is. The one tenet of the philosophy is that any time someone tries to define it in any concrete way so that it can be discussed and criticized the anarchists all come out of the woodwork to say “no, that’s not it.” They never say what it is, though, because it isn’t anything.
I can’t imagine the depths of arrogance and ignorance it requires to say that a political theory centuries in the making, with countless theorists writing lengthy tomes on the subject, has nothing to it.
I can quite easily summarise what it is, though. People self organising with no hierarchy. If you want it even simpler, anarchy is not having a ruler or leader; you can glean that just from the construction of the word, “an” (without) ,“archy” (rule), literally, “without a ruler”. There you go! I very much doubt you’ve talked to any anarchists, if you’ve never heard any say that. If you have, you certainly didn’t listen.
Mikhail Bakunin
Noam Chomsky
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Emma Goldman
Peter Kropotkin
Just a few names for you to look into, in the field that has no consistent theory, because no one knows what it is.