You do not understand anarchism in the slightest. You are imagining some Hobbsian hellscape out of a disaster movie, which is completely counter to human nature.

So your argument is that the only way to get people to live together is under the constant threat of violence from the state?

That’s a different situation considering the Irish language was created before there even was a united Ireland. We can trace the history of how English came to America, and it came from the English people. We can’t trace the history of how the Irish language spread across Ireland because it predates history.

I don’t know what that means, but I don’t think you do either.

The coffee certainly makes me need to poop!

What’s the circle A supposed to be here, then?

Yes, it’s 100% immature, which is exactly why you should do it.

Eating a banana while drinking coffee. Perfectly complimentary flavors.

I was mostly just making a snarky comment about how everyone is going to get tooth decay from lake of fluoridation.

Like I said, while semantically imprecise, yes, we did get the English language from the English.

Anarchists (lib left) aren’t typically waiting for society to collapse. We typically focus on building the world we want to see now in order to make the collapsing society unnecessary to provide out material needs. You know, the whole mutual aide and community organizing bit.

That’s just semantics. Sure, I guess the more proper way to say it is that when the Americans founded the US they continued the practice of race-based chattel slavery which the British had instituted in the colonies prior to the formation of the US. Is that really substantively different than saying the Americans adopted slavery from the British?

My bad. Thanks.

Sort of to both, but not really.

Slavery has existed for at least as long as states and kingdoms have, yes. But the specific form slavery took in the Americas (not just the US and North America) was unique. That being race-based chattel slavery. That form had not existed anywhere else in the world previously or since. The closest you could claim were the Helots in ancient Sparta, but even that was closer to serfdom than chattel slavery.

So, no, the British did not “invent slavery”, but they (along with the Spanish and French) did pioneer a new form of slavery that was uniquely brutal and inhumane.

And while you’re correct that America as a nation did not adopt slavery from the British after the formation of the US since the colonials had already been practicing race-based chattel slavery before the US existed. But where did those colonials get that slavery? From the British who were their overlords and ancestors, who formed the colonies, and who created the economic system that relied on race-based chattel slavery.

So while you might be technically right, it’s only due to semantics. The Brits absolutely did create virtually everything about the American system of slavery, which we then continued to perpetrate for another ~century after independence.

Again, you got that kind of money? I live outside DC, so not close to an international border. In fact, most Americans don’t live somewhere they can travel across the border easily. And with the way the government is denying entry to people with the wrong level of melatonin, I don’t think it’s particularly safe advice to tell people to start crossing the border regularly.

And most people in the US do not fly for vacations. It’s very expensive to fly, and most of us have cars we can take. I’m planning a family vacation later this year to visit my grandparents ~700 miles away. We priced it out and discovered it’s actually cheaper for us to rent an RV and drive than to fly. Flying, especially internationally for a shopping trip, is an extreme luxury for most of us.

Sure. And the US government has the CIA and military to enact that regime change. Plus they have all the cops and military to defend against a popular uprising overthrowing the government.

I’m not saying it can’t be done, but we’re still in the early stages of a popular uprising. That’s what these protests are about. This one on Saturday got, reportedly, ~5 million people on the streets at the same time. That’s ~1.5% of the country’s population. According to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, it takes ~3.5% of the population mass mobilizing at the same time to effect political change. That’s ~12 million people. That’s why this wasn’t a 1 and done protest. The next one is already scheduled for April 19. And there will be another after that. And another after that.

Let’s not just aim for 3.5%. Go higher. What can 5% of the country, 17 million people, do if we’re all out in the streets together? Rather than just complain that one single protest didn’t immediately result in widespread political change, why don’t you get out there and join us on the 19th? Bring your friends. Bring your family. Help make a change rather than just complaining that others aren’t doing it for you.

Because that’s realistic advice. You have money for be to buy a plane ticket every time I need groceries? Who’s going to fund everyone moving to another country? You got that kind of money? Because I don’t.

There is no mechanism within American politics to run a new election. If that’s the demand, we first would need to amend the Constitution, which isn’t going to happen, or violently overthrow the government. Just demanding, “run a new election” is as empty a demand as anything else you could imagine.

Nobody would be stupid enough to fall for this…

Brother, the US has been doing this for literally our entire history. We both Gulf Wars, Vietnam, and Korea were all just “police actions”, not wars (according to our government). Hell, in history we call our westward expansion the “Indian Wars”, but we never declared war on any Native American tribes ever. Those were just “internal police actions”.

Anarchists are kinda the exact opposite of authoritarians…