There’s a little problem about how it’s illegal. Specifically, . (See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385) So first i would have to get some non open anarchist into office who would change that law without letting on as to why. Then elect an anarchist candidate proper.
Only problem is, right now if i were to be voting for the candidates most likely to overturn that particular law right now they’re all Republicans. That’s, uh, not a party that represents me at all except for the odd chance the neurons in their brains fire in the right order and they do the thing to make candidates that represent my views allowed to profess their views openly.
There are actually about a hundred other hurdles to jump before we get to that point, but i think “a candidate who represents my views is a choice in an election” is pretty solidly in the “you don’t want to go there” category.
I don’t see that those paragraphs object to democratic change
Of course you cannot expect Republicans to fully represent you.
If you cannot convince 50% to vote for anarchy you won’t have anarchy if you overthrow the state with violence. All the problems you see, they have to be resolved. It will not be easy and can as well be impossible.
A lawyer is gonna tell you you’re on your fucking own on this one, though will probably offer to represent you when you’re inevitably dunked into legal troubles.
I’m a lot more optimistic about Anarchism’s appeal. George Orwell called anarchist Catalonia the closest thing he had ever seen to paradise. There are a lot of examples of Anarchist societies being highly successful (until the authoritarians show up and imprison/kill everyone).
There’s a little problem about how it’s illegal. Specifically,
. (See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385) So first i would have to get some non open anarchist into office who would change that law without letting on as to why. Then elect an anarchist candidate proper.
Only problem is, right now if i were to be voting for the candidates most likely to overturn that particular law right now they’re all Republicans. That’s, uh, not a party that represents me at all except for the odd chance the neurons in their brains fire in the right order and they do the thing to make candidates that represent my views allowed to profess their views openly.
There are actually about a hundred other hurdles to jump before we get to that point, but i think “a candidate who represents my views is a choice in an election” is pretty solidly in the “you don’t want to go there” category.
I don’t see that those paragraphs object to democratic change
Of course you cannot expect Republicans to fully represent you.
If you cannot convince 50% to vote for anarchy you won’t have anarchy if you overthrow the state with violence. All the problems you see, they have to be resolved. It will not be easy and can as well be impossible.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2139382
A left unity debate.
What do you want the most?
You wanna be the candidate to risk prison time on this one?
I would ask a lawyer first but I wouldn’t be worried about breaking the law.
However, you don’t start with a candidate. You have to convince 50% or better 90% of the population first. Then, the election is a formality.
I rather doubt that a majority wants Anarchy, even if you could start with a perfect setup.
A lawyer is gonna tell you you’re on your fucking own on this one, though will probably offer to represent you when you’re inevitably dunked into legal troubles.
I’m a lot more optimistic about Anarchism’s appeal. George Orwell called anarchist Catalonia the closest thing he had ever seen to paradise. There are a lot of examples of Anarchist societies being highly successful (until the authoritarians show up and imprison/kill everyone).