/lit/ - Literature

>>18719150
This book sucks.

>>18719154
It makes wild assumptions, but it simply renames and reinterprets the lies you’ve been fed.

So, how many uncle Ted posters on today?
Have you read this book?

>>18719154
filtered

>>18719150
>>18720324

>>18719150
take meds etc

I enjoyed the book as an iconoclastic polemic against the concept of history but many of the details of his own pet narrative are silly- like many primitivists he sees in ‘primitive’ man only what he wants to see (le free and noble savage meme), same with religion, role of women, etc.

>>18720330
It creates a dead thing to keep slaves. You’re simply entranced by it. The snake has charmed you since childhood. Learn to think on. Your own.

>>18720552
Good enough critique. I’m not turning primitivist because of it. But I see the trappings of this system and why we seem stuck in this rut.
So-called tradition is just modernism.

>>18720579
You simply cannot understand anything that confronts your beliefs without caricaturing it. Following as always with an evasive, opaque answer. Why so much fear?

>>18719150
Butterfly have you read the history of Robert Guiscard of Sicily. For me he is the exemplor of statescraft in this vein, a Norman bandit-adventurer who murders and schemes the theft of a kingdom from the Lombards, then attempts to murder and scheme his was to becoming Roman Emperor by invading Byzantium. He goes to war with the Pope, and after defeating him restores him to power as puppet. Dante placed him in the heaven of Mars. His children become accomplished crusaders who carve Levantine kingdoms for themselves through incessant warfare against Saracens, Greeks, and other Latins.

Isn't this human nature at its grandest? Aren't you lamenting what it is to be human and alive? Why wouldn't our evolution reward and select for this instinct and accomplishment in men so that it wins out against the peaceful agrarian type and in doing so becomes the nature of all people? Genghis Khan is the direct ancestor of 0.5% of the modern world, we must all be descendants of such brutal war-like men over the ages, and even of the most brutal war-like proto-men and apes as heirs of the victors of cruelty, the product of a long production line of violence and coercion.

Why not make peace with Leviathan, with humanity and the world as it actually is, rather than how in a pique of sentimentality you think it ought to be?

>>18721002
Anarchists are mentally retarded people who's entire flowery philosophy can be boiled down to: "I want to kill people I don't like". But seriously, they think the individual is prior to society (like liberals) which is bullshit.

Butterbabe, have you ever read Platos Republic :3

>>18721122
I agree anarchists are deluded idiots, but what you mean by individual is not prior to society? Yes, human consciousness (rational) can only be instantiated when there is stability, peace and order; otherwise there is only animal instinct of survival 24/7 without any ethical, metaphysical, religious, consideration.

>>18719150
>>18719166
How does someone manage to read good lit and still be a retard?

>>18721157
I have it on my shelf (free) I’m convinced I’m going to toss it.

>>18721122
The philosophy is more like, I want people to live better. I don’t want anyone to die. That’s statists
>Society came before the individual
The brain is malleable. Society is malleable.

>>18721115
>Isn't this human nature at its grandest?
No.
> Why not make peace with Leviathan
It will be the death of us.

>>18721197
By not being a glyphosate baby millennial or zoomer.

>>18721183
But don’t you see? What anarchists propose is perfectly possible. A natural tendency even.

>>18721264
Natural tendency to behave like the worst kind of animals that demand reins not to destroy everything and wipe its own species off the map? You want to take off what suppresses the natural flux of human exasperations and think think it is possible, worse, think there will be peace and an advancement. You want us not to call you insane?

Anarchism could only work if all the self-titled anarchists (and niggers and jews and commies and fat people and lazy people) were killed before hand.

>>18721220
>I have it on my shelf (free) I’m convinced I’m going to toss it.

It's the one book by Plato you should read, baby :3

You don't have to read aaaaaaanything else, just get comfy and read The Republic

>>18721301
Demand reins?

> You want to take off what suppresses the natural flux of human exasperations
What? You think not being able to raise armies against each other is a dangerous thing? You’re delusional.

>>18721264
>What anarchists propose is perfectly possible. A natural tendency even.
What will you do to check the amibtious and warlike within your utopia as they emerge or are born? Every political order, even a social order of anarchic equality, has to confront the problem of what to do about the ambitious. Machiavelli advises killing the disaffected ambitious, and giving honours and titles to the not yet disaffected ambitious to satisfy their drive for power and recognition. How does your republic deal with a plotting Caesar? How do you domesticate people and remake them so as not to strive for domination, sway others to their cause, seize and reestablish domination for themselves?

>>18721348
>You think not being able to raise armies against each other is a dangerous thing?
You are the one who thinks this, lol. You think it is easier for confronts between nations to happen than one killing the other. Of course wars and murders will always happen, you just forget it is communication, communio, that avoids an utter extinction.

>>18719166
>Camatte
Wait a second is butterfly secretly basado?

>>18721379
Native American did as the Kurds do now. They’re a set of warriors. Never allowed rule. Their mothers and fathers worth a damn would also keep them in check. Assholes do need to be killed if they don’t respond to positive social readjustments.
Ever see Atanarjuat?
The hardest part of this is the starting, I swear. The maintenance would be easier.

>>18721389
I’m sorry but are you ESL?

>>18721397
I’ve always been badass.

>>18721431
>The maintenance would be easier.
Your primative utopias are dishonest and wilfully naive. Like all groups it would devolve into antagonistic factions who would coalesce around ambitious and charismatic leaders who would make a play for power. You could write a lament like Cicero for your republic that history will remember as the Caesars and Anthonys seize power.

>>18721431
>The hardest part of this is the starting, I swear. The maintenance would be easier.
The hardest part would be maintenance, lmao.

>>18721431
>The hardest part of this is the starting, I swear. The maintenance would be easier.
You're betraying that anarchism has no serious means, nor put in much practical thought, about how to maintain power, and regards power as a static hypostasis that is to be seized all at once and then forever owned as a possession, as if placed on a shelf, rather than a fragile dynamic forever threatened and in the balance, a process not a thing.

>>18721524
I don’t imagine it primitive. But are we going to be faced with an energy shortage? Hope not.
Factions of states should be avoided as they are always, without fail, antagonistic. The factions I encourage would be free and easy (comparatively) and everyone would be able to work at making a peace between them all. Because it would be mutually advantageous of course! Only elitists are at odds with others for having what they don’t. Stealing as a system is where we’re at now. Sharing is where I suggest we go. This isn’t naive, it’s difficult getting there is all.

>>18721544
Refer to the above statement. It would get easier as it goes along.

>>18721555
No. Consensus Direct Democracy.

>>18721431
>Are you ESL
I'm glad you ignored my post because, as you could see, I had no motivation to engage further but wanted, not even to defend a point of mine,but just to point to the delusion shining through your stances. Anyhow, what gave it off?

>>18721630
>Refer to the above statement. It would get easier as it goes along.
It really wouldnt. It would fall further and further into chaos as time progresses. The only way it could possibly ever work is if there were a group in control. Which defeats the point of anarchism.
Didnt the Chicago anarchist zone even have armed guards to keep everyone in check? Top kek.

Youre a women who has never spent a day in your life facing the real world. You will never understand what the real world is actually like.

>>18721642
It wasn’t making sense.
Start again if you like.

>>18721431
>Native American
What? You think they have no organization? No institutions at all? Have you heard of Pierre Clastres? He is an anarchist and wrote a book on how some tribes find their perservation through wars and in this way avoid any kind of authoritarian dominion or whatever. I think you'd find it interesting but try to make me understand how this shit is possible without any organization (implying order as in ranking, rules, institutiosn, etc.).

>>18721630
>Because it would be mutually advantageous of course!
>Consensus Direct Democracy.
It's very naive and unbecoming of someone who is well read. Ambitious people will form factions and tear your republic apart. Your consensus will always have some that are disaffected, some that are ambitious, some that are effective leaders and organisers of people. In time they will form into sub-groups and champion a grievance or a personality (or a personality will open a grievance) and they will establish factions that will take power in your utopia.

>>18721686
Oh. You don’t know.
Anarchism isn’t no rules. It’s no rulers. It’s not chaos, it’s organization through anarchism (the circle A symbol), it isn’t no hierarchies, it’s a questioning of all unjustifiable hierarchies.
We’d be more organized than ever before. William Morris envisioned England turned back into a lordless medievalism with a very high standard of living and a flourishing arts and crafts movement.

Yes, Native American had a variety of ways. They once lived in cities during the European medieval period in the Ohio valley regions. But freak weather took all the rain to Europe, flooded them, destroying crops and killing plenty. North American drought drove the native away from city living forever. They found better ways to live. Until smallpox infestations

>>18721651
Nevermind. Just know I am not opposed to anarchism, this is the spiritual reality immanentized among men. But you know... it can only happen when Christ descend and then, again, it is the immanentization of the eschaton.

>>18721746
>Anarchism isn’t no rules. It’s no rulers. It’s not chaos, it’s organization through anarchism (the circle A symbol), it isn’t no hierarchies, it’s a questioning of all unjustifiable hierarchies.
I'm sorry, but this does not even make sense. There is no way to even criticize it.

ANARCHISM HAS NEVER EVER WORKED AND IT SURE AS HELL WONT WORK IN THE MODERN AGE

>>18721721
>Ambitious people will form factions
When? Oh now. They do this now. The more the people unite against this mania the easier it can be to rout them out. If not killed, then eyes gouged out and tongues cut out. The next generation would be raised better.

You don’t get how consensus works. If there’s some racists, they can huddle together, but they’re going to have to deal with surrounding bolos/townships/commune clusters. So no lynchings. Everyone’s needs can be met. Except the full wishes of the intolerant and the predictors. Who would be either killed or institutionalized depending on the community that catches them.

>>18721760
Read Proudhon. It’s perfectly sensible

>>18721767
It works frequently

>>18721780
You think conflicts will only arise between the conservative anarchical group and the disruptive revolutionaries. It doesn't seem you have read Nietzsche. Alliance arises only to break itself off and generate new conflicts. Consensus are not attained rationally, but through will alone.

>>18721780
>predictors
Predators*

>>18721805
The primitivist is already the conservative wing of anarchism.
Their enemies, the technophiles will part ways, but I think we can all agree on not pillaging nature for the sake of cybernetic bodies and AI slaves (at least for a little while). The challenges of the future I would welcome if I could only see them.
I’m not Fukuyama. This won’t be the end of history

>>18721827
Ah a child, just a child clinging to her dreams. I would protect you, though, butterfly.

>>18719150
You’re a dyke

>>18721220
>I have it on my shelf (free) I’m convinced I’m going to toss it.
Jesus Christ she hasn’t even done the most prerequisite of reading.

I am going to apply to be a mod next time they have open spots and straight up van her completely and appeal to gookmoot that she needs to be completely vaporized and permabanned from posting here

Butterfly is based I'd love to talk to her about
the Leviathan over a glass of wine as we dance around our obvious sexual attraction to each other.

>>18721524
>primitive utopia
>thinking perlman was talking about some ideal social organization
lmao. Read the book next time champ

>>18722045
Why does Butterfly make shitwits seethe so much?

>>18722062
Because she doesn’t read enough. Only things she likes. It’s like reading a bunch of right wing lit and not bothering to crack open Marx or even Proudhon

>>18722078
Oh yeah dude Perlman, real r*ddit author, totally.

>>18722055
Stop, she doesn't like it :3

>>18722045
Prerequisite for a philosophy degree? No one needs that.

>>18722078
>B-because I don’t approve ROUUUUUUUUOOOOOOOOOHHH
I don’t have time to dabble in far right stuff. I came from it, I’m not going back.
But I think it’s odd how you don’t see how I’ve retained some kind of conservatism. Oh well. Doesn’t matter.

>>18722101
Don't worry about their negative aggression, Butterfly. You should really distance yourself from any political thinking :3

PLEASE do not think that way. Just read The Republic eventually :) no pressure sweetie

>>18721746
>it isn’t no hierarchies, it’s a questioning of all unjustifiable hierarchies.
Wrong. You can't justify political hierarchies, because all of them are structures of domination and centralization of power. Anarchism is against hierarchies.

>>18722164
>Wrong
Wrong
Children aren’t born the equals of their parents. An expert in any given field is by definition over the novice in those matters. Read some theory already.

>>18719150
Why are the arts and arbitrary notions of morality the weapons here? People disagree on those things more often than you think, enough for it to not have any power; this is art 101 for fuck's sake. I'm tired of stupid ass leftists thinking that they own art

>>18721780
How would anarchist true believers, who place themselves outside of the practice of politics and political processes in the present world, be good at conducting the politics within a utopia? The practioners of politics from the ancien era would be at a distinct advantage in rallying and forming factions in the utopia against the anarchist true believer faction.

The anarchist true believers would always be a subset of the overall population within the utopia, not everyone, even the contented, would have an ideological commitment of the political elite. A utopian guard, that you foreshadow, would be needed to police the non-believers, ambitious. and malcontents from overthrowing the utopia. However the set of true-believers, and the set of utopian guard, would not always align, some true-believers would not be able to fight. The interests, vision, and ambitions of the utopian guard, who now command power within the utopia, would not necessarily be coincidental with the interests of the utopia or of the true-beleivers. Here there is already the seeds of a discord even in the best of possible circumstances. The ambitious commander or disaffected guardsman forms a nucleus for the Napoleon or Sejanus to form their own faction and seize power for themselves. The ideology of the utopia does not block this, the action of the faction can always be framed to be an act that is in the best interests of the utopia or the anarchist ideals of the utopia. Their enemies could always be framed as an anti-utopia faction, and they the true protectors of anarchy. In any case, multiple factions are inevitable:
>true believers, including those unable to fight
>fighting guardsmen, even if ideologically loyal to be begin with, their continued affiliation rests on fighting ability not ideology, allowing a difference to open
>members outside of either group, not true believers but perhaps happy enough to start with
>over time, natural disaffected, ambitious and discontented from contingent acts and affairs of the utopia
And with factions comes division and conflict, and space for the ambitious to develop and steer a faction to take control of the utopia.

>>18722055
Follow the conversation dummy. The post is in reply to the supposed primitive communism of American Indian tribes providing an example of a practical anarchism that could be emulated.

>>18722250
You mean constant warfare and abuse that culminated in the need for founding empires? Fucktard

>>18722213
He’s describing sections of history with large strokes.

>>18722244
>Who would anarchists
Everyone practicing Direct Democracy would be. People want their freedom (if they don’t, we’re going to die). This isn’t a utopia. Utopia is a dream for the future. Currently we have liberal capitalist greed claiming to be bringing utopia, Pinker proclaiming “we’re almost there guys!”. With the salesmen gone from the scene, I’d imagine we’ll be a bit more honest with ourselves.

> anarchist true believers would always be a subset
At first, yes. This isn’t a political party or elite club. It’s more of a variety of tactic and goals. Again, everyone (majority) gets on board or it doesn’t work out. Good news is it’s a big enough tent to accommodate most everyone’s basic and superfluous needs and wants. No, no utopian vanguard of the people's anarchist party. That’s anathema to the movement. It holds together for not having these kinds of elites.
Okay, anon wanted to know about the warrior minded youth. They’re like everyone else and not allowed to rule over anyone in the meets (the DD gatherings) they’re a small faction. Always a small faction, as every neighborhood meet is a small faction of about 4000 to 5000 tops. Anymore and it gets crazy and necessarily they’ll have to break up into smaller sections. The defense forces will eventually have to disband I would imagine. But if not, rest assured, there’s no Napoleon coming out of this.
Charismatics will sway how many to do what now? Make films? Build monumental buildings? Space elevators? Raising an army bigger than a neighborhood? Not that last one. That sort of thing will get harder and harder to once this takes hold. These people live in small clusters and know nearly everyone like small townsfolk do. A shithead will be sniffed out.
> The ideology of the utopia does not block this
It does, but more importantly, the system, once in place, will block it.
>Factions
The futurists and the primitivists will give the communalist and individualist headaches with their bickering, but they will just have to work something out, agree to disagree and go their own ways.

>>18722535
I know you're describing the general idea of something but it is not quite clear to me how you're going to get rid of "charismatics." Sorry, I'm >>18722213 this guy but if there are no weapons such that can be used for the fine art that is war then there is no suffering for any other kind of art either. Moreover, anarchism is not anarchy, I think the idea is that people will not be manipulated by ideologues or charismatics as you've called them is often not from one person leading others on but one person co-opting a cause for their own gain, for this reason I think that Universities should not be the ones in charge of forming ideological doctrine because it always devolves to one thing: Fooling goons to do the charismatics' bidding and it results in more violence. If you give people a bunch of tactics and goals as you describe they will follow them through as they've interpreted; I think the idea is original and interesting to discuss but when it comes down to food, my friend, people are savages in a war more ancient than prostitution...

>>18721327
Dangerously based.

>>18722678
Not getting rid of. They’re just as appreciated. But any subversiveness towards authoritarianism wouldn’t go so well. They can’t organize an army right under everyone’s noses. They’re fools if they try to extort people with a loose nuke. This kind of thing is still very dangerous in the early stages, but I am trying to describe one generation later.

Education reform is also important. I’m distrustful of universities too. Haven’t read up on it too much yet.

Food is another area supremely important and needs to be stage one of this effort

>>18722687
More like, so stupid no one bothered to flag it.

>>18722719
Well, ok this seems like what I've read so far from Junger 'On Pain' would be compatible. That being said, I can grant you the first two points no questions asked.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that food and merchants are the same industry. When you have a direct democracy whose community leaders are locals who have never seen the world, yes there will be more focus on what the town does best, if it's oranges then people will probably get more incentives from the government to produce oranges. Still, these locals, who would they be? The problem with a direct democracy is that they are a a spiral of bureaucracy that could easily be exploited by corrupt governments and there would hardly be any real local leaders getting elected; now I am discussing this as a theory but consider the following:

A merchant rather than a politician takes over. Because this merchant has been rather successful in life, the merchant was able to see the world outside the town and discover different ways of seeing things. Upon being elected, this merchant will know more than just the town and will worry about the beauty of the town, thus new contractors will be given jobs and in consequence more people are occupied doing something productive, suppose that we get rid of currency and everyone gets paid in food. But what about the people producing food? hat are you going to pay them with? Their own food? Sounds like someone's getting played and it's the people who feed everyone else

>>18719150
>>18719166
>>18719313
>>18720579
>>18721220
>>18721264
>>18721348
>>18721431
>>18721630
>>18721651
>>18721746
>>18721780
>>18721807
>>18721827
>>18722101
>>18722195
>>18722535
>>18722719

>>18719150
>The
>philosopher-king of this Republic starts things moving by mak ing the land of peasant communities a marketable commodity.
Try reading Plato you stupid tranny

>>18722841
Good.

>>18719150
Are Americans actually stupid enough to believe that the concept of "History" has absolutely anything to do with the possessive pronoun of "His"...?

>>18719150
OK but what kind of retard becomes a peasant? Have you learned nothing from this COVID cycle? The majority of people are barely conscious. They are cattle, they want to be branded.

>>18722765
>The problem with a direct democracy is that they are a a spiral of bureaucracy that could easily be exploited by corrupt governments
They are the government, so to speak, and I highly discourage representative governance for anything other than temporary bodies with specific tasks. No one of them can take over. For pious communities they will leave themselves open for religious controllers, but what can we do about such charlatans?
As for pay, I think at first we can ween ourselves off of money with nonaccumulative currency/labor vouchers. After a while on that we could do without even that (some places will want to use bitcoin unfortunately). But as long as debts are gone we should be alright for a while. A shared economy wouldn’t be so bad really the farmer gets paid food, clothing, healthcare, etc. just like everyone else. He won’t live on oranges alone.

>>18722860
It’s just a name for his book. Making it “his-story” as a creative flourish. It’s a very inventive narrative.

>>18722851
It was a quote from the book. Again, he’s painting in very broad strokes.
>>18722854
You don’t see the irony?

>>18722914
>It’s just a name for his book. Making it “his-story” as a creative flourish. It’s a very inventive narrative.
It's yet another juvenile Americanization of the English language. It not only glaringly underlines a complete lack of knowledge but also reveals some sordid, absurd revisionism in language for completely juvenile ends. You won't "beat the Leviathan" if this is how you are even now using your own language. "His-story", get a grip.

Western morons tried to enact a "classless" uprising via the CHAZ disaster which got conveniently memory-holed by the entire Western media apparatus. How did it all end? Some black drug dealer became a warlord and within days several people were murdered.

>>18722927
Seething leviathan tranny.

>>18722927
>threatened by wordplay.
It’s a glaring statement about history. You don’t have to take offense. You’re unaware that males have dominated its narrative, continue to dominate it? “Juvenile ends”? Absurd histrionics.

>>18722939
CHAZ was always just a TAZ, temporary autonomous zone. It was looked after, but crime continued the same as always. Meetings were held. No one took control of it till it was given back.

>>18724223
please send me your address so we can read excerpts from this book post-coitally

Regarding the Latins
>… But while federated for four generations something happens to them. They undergo what P. Clastres will call a "political revolution," although the transformation is gradual. The generals become permanent, and so do the soldiers. The peasants who feed the army also become permanent, and their contributions come to be expected and finally enforced.

>>18722195
Bakunin already addresses that in God and the State. Experts and caretakers are not hierarchies of domination and centralization of power. Those positions are not politically charged nor should be. Stop embarassing yourself.

>>18724584
That was my point. We can and should whittle it down to that.
I’ve no idea who has read what, so I try to start from the beginning when explaining. Pardon if you’re embarrassed. I’m just sharing

>>18719150
Im enjoying this book a lot, but discord gnostics told me they used a false stereotype of historical gnostics as hermits and isolated from society, when many gnostics back then were perfectly integrated into civilization.

>>18724665
Yeah. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt

>>18719150
SHOITE

>>18722914
I'm still here. I do see the irony. Representative charlatans as you call them are the government but they're the government because of the corruption and criminality that they champion and use ideals to cover up for. That being said, if you have someone who is involved in the production of resources in government, you have someone more savvy on what actually needs to be done, and they don't necessarily have to be "good guys" tm either if we could round up and put all our politicians in the slammer things would be great and maybe then we could have a realistically viable direct democracy.

Naive leftists and also to a degree anarchists tend toward a belief in the goodness of humanity. I'm not saying this is you, butterfly, but I notice that there is a tendency that goes AGAINST dialectical materialist thought in that whenseveral of the important tenets of an ideology that got someone elected aren't met, the new elect leader is as despised as the former. I don't know how a direct democracy would benefit especially the smaller communities in any way that representative democracies already don't. If you could enlighten me on that, I would welcome your insight.

>>18725287
The people of any given neighborhood govern themselves. They represent themselves. They concern themselves with the running of their neighborhoods and contractual agreements with surrounding neighborhoods.
The smaller sizes are necessary for meeting expediencies and aid in keeping communities more close knit, even if there’s some overlap within cities, you have a better than usual grasp for small town closeness. You fear a nefarious factionalism, but the sizes of these places protect against it pretty much. Besides the big meets people are encouraged to hold smaller affinity groups. Like everyone in electoral maintenance, plumbing, women’s groupings, or just some cul-de-sac. If Masonic, Skull and Bones, Trotskyists or Opus Dei, are going to try something, they’re going to have a very hard time of it.

If a whole community makes a mistake in something, neglects some infrastructure, fails to catch predatory psychotics, whatever, they’ll be quick enough to turn right around and address the situation. By their nature they’re more responsive with multiple hands on the wheel. If slower, they’re surer. A shaky thing at first, they’ll certainly get better with practice.
But ending capitalism is paramount, because the way we live now is wasting the natural world away.

>>18725397
Ok excuse me, I had to take a while to process this...

I agree that the people of any neighbourhood would govern themselves, because they do so already. The factionalism I'm afraid of is less political btw, it has more to do with people who are discontent with the tight knit community (let's suppose it's a many nuclear families kinda' thing) and so they leave the house to live a bohemian lifestyle. What assures me that those people will not be radicalized against the community from the OUTSIDE of this regime? They come back to where they are loved and begin to talk about what they saw, which will be heard by impressionable ears which will in turn be heard by the informant culture that makes up the security system of this tight knit community (is it not?)

The security system wherein a group of people hold each other accountable I think has better arguments for getting rid of capitalism than environmentalist commentary, I think that the root however is that you're relying on people telling the truth. I think it would be easy for leaders to find out what the truth is and perhaps if they are good ones they will inform you but...at what cost? You see my concern? I mostly agree with what you're saying thus far, Butterfly. I think that the system, like said may not be initially efficient but it is better at identifying root causes of problems than what we currently have...bravo.

>>18722535
Prolegomena to Any Future Utopians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Order_in_Changing_Societies

>>18725648
>because they do so already.
They don’t.
> let's suppose it's a many nuclear families (who are discontent)
Nuclear families by definition are atomized. A cul-de-sac of them can neutralize this terrible condition. But say some of them prefer or are otherwise used to an insular life. This is alright by the community. As alright as any strong individualist. Autonomy is respected and no one is forced to participate in the meets or affinity groups if they don’t want to. It’s encouraged but not mandatory.

Liars will be a problem from the start when the state is still strong and resisting, certainly. We’ll Naturally have to remain vigilant. Afterwards, I don’t see why too many would lie. Not sure about what. About how large their parcel of land is supposed to be? All things can be dealt with easily enough.

>>18725908
Ok, fair and well played. Such crime in these communities, I think, would not be something like violence or dishonesty but rather TOO much honesty. If you say that buddy was stealing you're getting buddy in shit, but you're also getting in shit with yourself, sometimes not to testify is better than testifying. Just answer this to me: What is a kind of regret... What is an example of misdeed which a person may be unable to forgive his or her self for, even if they have been forgiven?

>>18725987
What?