unfortunately “thrust” is the accurate aircraft term 😭

under capitalism governments need to have market controls to prevent products that only harm and trap users to enrich the producer

It’s like drugs.

fwiw the accounting savings are already factored into the $900M price tag

You can try it right now, actually.

!pukedtheonion

oh i thought you were referring to people saying it to illustrate how bad the system is and how important trump winning the election was lol. i definitely agree that it doesn’t justify what he’s doing (even if it legally stands, even if it legally stands, it doesn’t stand socially)

but it is not inaccurate to say nearly half of the citizens preferred him on election day. per the link, pew research shows 48% of non-voters would’ve voted for trump as opposed to 45%, with a pretty high validity.

it’s like gravity

(small objects don’t have (well, show, I guess but uhhh) it but large ones do)

NPR: Trump would have won even if everyone eligible voted. I agree that substantial Trump voters disapprove of current events, but the truth is one in two US citizens preferred Trump over Harris on Election Day. Not to mention turnout was 64% not 42%, so it’s 30% not 20%

it’s so intuitive that it frankly isn’t even oniony

yeah that is indeed my last sentence. i’m pointing out that maybe this means capital can sort of back-and-forth this. anti-immigration to get into power and do pro-capital things, then be pro-immigration to get into power and expand labor force, repeat

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/ny5q74/where_do_tanks_come_from/ has been debated to death so check out this link’s comments for far more well-written explanations of how big industry like military happens, and of course defense.

I don’t see how transportation and hospitals is going to be harder under anarchism. Tons of people aspire to be doctors including children who’ve no concept of monetary value; all those medical dramas weren’t for naught.

The most popular replacement for capital markets is personal interest and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy . https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci413 ? Well, do you want to do your chores? Probably not. But still, somebody has to do them, so eventually you do. Especially in damnedentireanarchist country, where people know how to stand up and have historically done so to overthrow a government.

Education administration would be the same as any other organization under anarchism, but there is a good question here about curriculum. The short answer is that the educators would decide on their syllabus and of course their curriculum as well. Of course, broadening views would be better, so like other organizations under anarchisms, different schools can schedule councils that they send rotating delegates to. (Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy, not necessarily organization.) In general, standards can also still exist under anarchism. For how that works out you can take a look at protocols in open source and other open standards.

They start buying votes with favors?

votes?

decision makers

(English) Wikipedia can be looked onto as an example. It’s fairly anarchistically organized (except, of course, its military is the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal department, which isn’t applicable to an anarchist society. for what is applicable see first paragraph). In summary, enwiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus is built through discussion logs that are summarized by someone people trust who hasn’t participated in the discussion. That summarizer decides what arguments are most grounded in community norms and then which arguments are more popular to decide what the consensus is (or isn’t. “No consensus” is an option. People are aware they can’t just bash at a brick wall, too, so if there’s an urgent-ish problem they know to eventually agree/concede on something.). You can also do reviews—a discussion where another independent summarizer uninvolved with both discussions will summarize whether the community thinks the initial summary was reasonable.

There is an extension in applying this to society: If anyone opposes (not just disagreeing while conceding) with that summary/decision, they may instead form a different association for the purpose of this task and execute their vision elsewhere.

Road repairs?

This is actually the most well-known example of socialism in action in a capitalist society, only surpassed (by miles) by libraries. Besides usual sewer socialism where the government focuses on public works, there’s independent direct action like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Anarchist_Road_Care where anarchists, fed up with broken roads, “illegally” fixed them themselves.

How is it decided that someone has too much

Property doesn’t exist.

Assuming the question means “What do we do to those who don’t want to follow anarchism?”: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci57 . TL;DR: No “taxes” but no communal services for you either. Crime would be dealt with as crime. People who work against a social structure kinda get ostracized no matter if anarchism or capitalism, and in anarchism where the social circles are the government (as far as provision of services is concerned), ostracism is far more severe.

An interesting case study is DAANES, whose “democratic confederalism” adopted many ideas from libertarian socialism—the most mainstream school of anarchism, and the one I’m talking about—and whose participants sort of conceded to see how it works out. Social and educative forces are far more compelling than you might imagine.

it’s interesting you point out successful social movements are often aligned with capital, as the major totalitarian thing today, action against illegal immigrants, is action against expanding the labor force. it gets society invested in giving capital power though

could you explain how this would lead to corruption? and at the least, it’s better than electoralism, which is US democracy

how is this oniony

assuming they can fight off the revolutionaries who just overthrew the much bigger government, that is

You can only gain power if you manage to take it from others, who won’t just bolt away and surrender their agency. Instead, for the hungry you say, authority should be enough for such self-actualization. The difference to power is that instead of forceful mandates, authority is enabled by well-earned community trust, which is far more gratifying (and revocable).

If organizing has gotten to the point where an anarchist revolution has happened, then enough of that spirit will be left so that the people are brave enough to stop those who try to create property again out of nothing. Anarchy is governance by society and social pressure instead of government force.

(fwiw note that this was a case of Sovereign Citizen tax protesting, not tax striking/resistance. i couldn’t find info on Tea Party supporting this though the movement is tangentially related to SovCit)

During the standoff, a number of supporters were camped outside his home and were encouraged to record any attempt to take Brown from his house. This policy of opening the door to supporters led to the successful arrest of the couple by United States Deputy Marshals who disguised themselves as supporters.