You did imply nonexistence of regulatory institutions - and, to dig a bit deeper into that, anything that would sufficiently fulfill their role - in your first comment and contextualized that to anarcho syndicalism in your second, which reveals that your intent was to argue against anarcho syndicalism on the basis of it necessarily being devoid of some sort regulatory body or it’s equivalent. Even without being an anarcho syndicalist I know that to be a bogus argument, and so should you, unless you don’t know or understand it’s propositions.
I’d compare that to a medieval farmhand claiming that the country can not survive without a king, while surviving (barely, sure, but that’s not the point) without any of the institutions you’ve mentioned and disproving your claim completely.
Just a jab at the argument, not at you, please don’t take it too seriously. Radical changes are scary and because of that they seem impossible to attempt and absurd to discuss, but you need to remember we only have that democracy thing for a few hundred years now, and the shift to it was very radical. Sometimes it’s good to consider alternatives to systems that yeld subpar results with very weak promises of stability that are betrayed every 7 years, because you just might find the new neat thing like democracy, or at very least broaden your perspective.
I’m free to take this seriously because it’s a serious topic. Don’t try to cover your butt by saying, “I was just kidding,” or “don’t take this seriously.” If you mean what you say, be accountable and stand up for it.
You’re jabbing me, you say so yourself. I’m not interested in trading more barbs so I’m disengaging. Good luck with effecting change.
No, you’re arguing against what you think anarchy is
And your preconception is false.
What’s my preconception? If you’re saying it’s false, you need to be able to say what it is. Otherwise your response is without value.
What’s anarchy? If you’re saying you’re against it, you need to be able to say what it is. Otherwise your response is without value.
You, and, and anyone can freely discuss the definition of anarchy because it’s publicly available.
My preconception is not. That’s why you’re wrong.
Have the day you deserve.
lol you are so bad at arguing and critical thinking
Anarchy is whatever that HBO series says it is
You did imply nonexistence of regulatory institutions - and, to dig a bit deeper into that, anything that would sufficiently fulfill their role - in your first comment and contextualized that to anarcho syndicalism in your second, which reveals that your intent was to argue against anarcho syndicalism on the basis of it necessarily being devoid of some sort regulatory body or it’s equivalent. Even without being an anarcho syndicalist I know that to be a bogus argument, and so should you, unless you don’t know or understand it’s propositions.
I’d compare that to a medieval farmhand claiming that the country can not survive without a king, while surviving (barely, sure, but that’s not the point) without any of the institutions you’ve mentioned and disproving your claim completely.
Just a jab at the argument, not at you, please don’t take it too seriously. Radical changes are scary and because of that they seem impossible to attempt and absurd to discuss, but you need to remember we only have that democracy thing for a few hundred years now, and the shift to it was very radical. Sometimes it’s good to consider alternatives to systems that yeld subpar results with very weak promises of stability that are betrayed every 7 years, because you just might find the new neat thing like democracy, or at very least broaden your perspective.
I’m free to take this seriously because it’s a serious topic. Don’t try to cover your butt by saying, “I was just kidding,” or “don’t take this seriously.” If you mean what you say, be accountable and stand up for it.
You’re jabbing me, you say so yourself. I’m not interested in trading more barbs so I’m disengaging. Good luck with effecting change.