Ignoring the massive cost, legal hurdles, and the opinion of the residents/government/outside powers, if you could magically grant independence to certain territories or form new bigger nations from existing ones with no repercussions to yourself, what new countries would you create?
Please treat this as a non-serious post, let’s not get into a massive political debate, those never end well.
What stops a self-organizing collective from becoming racist, sexist, transohobic, and pro-rape?
I doubt you or I or anyone else here would join such a collective, but what would be our recourse when one forms and rapes my son or lynches your daughter?
Modern states at least have the benefit of a basic theory that they cannot simply un-person people who live within their borders. I dont see what the ewuivalenf mechabism would be to encourage a self-organized collective from doing so.
What stops a state from becoming the same?
What are you talking about? Most modern states routinely strip people within and outside of their borders of rights, deport, murder, or enslave them.
Modern states suspend the rights of individuals to lifer or liberty as a punishment for breaking a rule. Rules like “don’t rape people”.
At least in theory, you can move to another nation or campaign for better treatment in essentially all modern states, exempting a small group of pariah states that still mostly don’t rape people as punishment.
Not a single person I’ve seen has so much as suggested any mechanism whatsoever that would keep “self organizing collectives” from becoming fetit pools of bigotry and violence. We know that will happen because such groups arise in every nation already, but their impact is curbed specifically by the power of the state.
“Get rid of the government and we’ll all do the right thing” is libertarian bullshit to cover their glee at taking things away from others. If you aren’t a pro-rape libertarian, figure out how your proposed system would protect the vulnerable at least as well as modern states do.
They also do it for rules like “wrong skin color,” “wrong country of origin,” “wrong sexuality or gender identity,” “born into poverty and stole food,” “suffering from drug addiction,” or even “possessed a completely harmless drug like weed.” And the punishment is often the total depravation of rights and forced labor tantamount to slavery.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike from stealing loaves of bread.”
This wasn’t a good argument in feudal society when peasants could leave and find another Lord or live on their own, and it’s not a good argument now. Choice is pointless when all your choices share the same constraints.
What mechanism prevents states from becoming fetid pools of bigotry and violence, and how has it been working so far? The power of the state does not curb this behavior, it curbs its rivals while engaging in that very behavior themselves by maintaining a monopoly on violence.
Anarchy is not the lack of government, it’s horizontal governance. Hierarchy is not necessary for community policing or restorative justice. I’m not an American Libertarian which is an irrational ideology, as it wants capitalism without the state, which is impossible because capitalism is enforced by the state. Without the state protecting private property there can be no capitalism.
That’s a fuckload of words that barely come close to answering the question of “what in this new system of yours protects against rape gangs”?
Maybe drop your edgy hate-fetish and answer the question instead of attacking other ideas? Because this is the closest you came and it’s handwavey as fuck.
Listing three Adjectice Noun keywords works just fine as for signaling to others who agree with your abstract goals that you can get a beer together, but does fuck all to convince anyone to join or respect your cause.
I care about boys and girls not getting gang-raped, and such rape-gangs being effectively punsihed so they stop being such and others are incentivized not to follow their lead. Extant states today attempt this through the state monopoly on proactice violence and the various political and legal systems which determine when such violence may be used.
You’re suggesting eliminating “the state”, meaning the thing that results from said political activity and through its various judicial systems does the aforementioned proactice violence. While I agree that this system is imperfect, I am not at all convincded that whatever you are suggesting would be even at least as just because you keep wasting your words on arguing how the current system is bad.
Just because the current system is bad doesn’t mean some other system wouldn’t be worse.