Never seen it.

Off to see why I apparently should…

…Ah. I see.

That’s a specific approach I’ve never seen before, though the broad strategy is tediously familiar.

I’m amazed and pleased. I almost never encounter anyone who shares my views, even among self-described 'anarchists."

Most of them carry around lists (figuratively at least) of all of the things that will be required and all of the things that will be prohibited in their “anarchism,” antagonistically immune to the fact that by doing so, they’ve already stipulated institutionalized, hierarchical authority and thus proactively eliminated anarchism.

I don’t think of it as a political philosophy but more just as a description of how I believe the world actually is when stripped of the systems we’ve laid on top of everything.

Very much yes.

My anarchism is rooted in my view that authority is a contrivance, and an ultimately unjustifiable one.

Tom lives alone on a desert island. That means that Tom, within the constraints necessarily imposed by simple reality (he can’t, for instance, flap his arms and fly) enjoys complete freedom of choice.

The only way that that freedom can be constrained is if another person is introduced and that other person acts to constrain Tom’s freedom.

So as you note, the state of affairs in which Tom’s freedom is constrained beyond anything determined by simple reality is some additional element that’s laid on top of the base state.

And as such, it’s the thing that must be justified. Tom doesn’t have to justify being free from constraint imposed by another - he already was so free, and would have remained so were it not for the fact that the other has chosen to try to introduce constraint.

Therefore, the introduction of constraint is the thing that must be justified

And there’s no possible justification for it that doesn’t ultimately establish a hierarchy by which the other person is seen to effectively be a superior being, such that their determination of what Tom may, may not, must or must not do is superior even to Tom’s

If the tacit presumption of innate superiority isn’t made, then any and all noninal justifications for authority over Tom’s decisions fail, since any argument by which any other party might justify imposing their will on Tom is also an argument by which Tom might justify imposing his will on them, and any argument by which they might claim to be rightly free of the imposition of Tom’s will is also an argument by which Tom might claim to be rightfully free of the imposition of their will upon him.

This is where and why institutionalized authority inevitably goes wrong, which in turn is why I’m an anarchist.

Without first hand knowledge, I couldn’t say in any detail, but I expect that ambitious, greedy, power-hungry psychopaths are already angling for Council positions, from which they’ll exercise tacit authority until such time as their positions and their authority can be institutionalized, at which point they’ll become the new generation of corrupt officials.

That’s not to say or imply I oppose the effort - if nothing else, they’ve gotten some breathing room. And hopefully the next time they throw off their tyrants, they’ll remember how they got their start and reject authority in and of itself and entirely, rather than deluding themselves that it can be constrained.

My anarchism.

Anarchism in general makes me the other when dealing with most people, but the specifics of my views on it also generally make me the other when dealing with most “anarchists.” (I oppose any and all attempts to institute anarchism - I believe it will arise organically or not at all - and I similarly reject any and all stipulations regarding what sort of standards, norms or systems may, may not, must or must not be a part of an anarchistic society),

So here’s how I see it:

Someone is goading/bribing Trump into acting so that they can take control of the Central and North American narcotics trade.

That’s why he pushed for invading Mexico to fight the cartels, and when that didn’t work out, he shifted to starting a war with Venezuela.

It’s obviously not a sincere effort to stop narcotics traffic, or he wouldn’t be pardoning Hernández. It’s much more likely that he’s pardoning Hernández because he either already is or is intended to be a well-connected and experienced ally to Trump and whoever it is that he’s working for/with.

No - actually that’s exactly what you voted for - you’re just too stupid and/or lazy and/or blinded by hate to realize that, or too dishonest to admit it.

And it’s not as if it was written by some schlub in a trailer park or something - the division of CNN responsible for that undoubtedly has a budget in at least seven figures and dozens of employees who are by definition professionals.

And that’s the best they could do? How is that even possible?

On a related note - I kept thinking, reading through that - how can something from CNN be that poorly written? It’s not as if it’s a jetliner or a bridge or a skyscraper - it’s an article and an accompanying set of news briefs that a high school English student could’ve knocked out in an hour, and the student would’ve done a better job.

How many employees does CNN have? And how is it that none of them could manage to make sure that that didn’t go out until it was competently written?

One would think that CNN could at least afford a proofreader.

Feeling a bit North Korea in here.

How perfect.

This is a great example of how it is that the right is always wrong, but always has followers anyway. It’s because they live in a doggedly self-affirming fantasy world in which they blithely believe unsupported nonsense like QAnon while just as blithely disregarding simple fact like the Epstein files, all based not on evidence or logic, but just based on whether or not it fits their preconceptions.

It’s a perfect little delusional universe where they’re free to be told whatever they want to believe and ignore whatever they don’t want to believe.

This is a large part of why Republicans love “privatizing” government services - so they can then collect bribes and kickbacks from the often nepotistic contractors who get the no-bid contracts.

And as always, the Trump regime does it more and bigger than anyone ever.

So doesn’t that mean that the next step is for Trump to call TruthAI mean and nasty, then sue it?

Because he’s a corrupt piece of shit, owned by the same moneyed interests that own the Republicans.

So the message to poor Americans from Trump and the Republicans is “If we can’t take away your health insurance assistance, we’ll take away your food assistance.”

And all so that they can pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

They’re psychopaths. They really are - they are, and rather self-evidently, entirely unconstrained by morals, principles, empathy or conscience, so meet the DSM standards.

That don’t just need to be voted out of office - they need to be institutionalized.

Huh… that sounds about right.

Alito, for instance, was always a demagogic piece of shit, and Thomas was always a corrupt piece of shit, but for a while there, Roberts was a relatively decent justice, all things considered. But no more - now he’s at least as corrupt/compromised as the rest of them. But I was never quite sure how that happened, and that’s a plausible explanation.

They could - Congress has the exact same authority to impeach a supreme court justice as they do a president (or any other federal office-holder for that matter).

But they won’t.

A Dem majority wouldn’t be enough, because Schumer and Jeffries and all the rest of their neolib hack allies would still be there, and they’re owned by most of the same big money donors that own the Republicans.

The only way there’s any chance that Congress would actually exercise its authority is if all of the corrupt shitweasels are primaried and the Dems end up not just with a majority, but a majority of actual leftists with actual principles and integrity.

And that’s terribly unlikely, since both the Republicans and the Democrats would fight it tooth and toenail.

Though he likely won’t hold public attention, I suspect that Roberts will, in the analyses of professional historians and political scientists, be judged second only to Trump in responsibility for the coming collapse of the US.

More precisely, since it’s an honor system, Trump, who possesses no honor whatsoever, is immune.

lol

Okay, so usually an instant self-own.

“Do you know who I am?!” is an instant self-own.