Ask Your Question today
I was reading a post elsewhere where the person was saying anarchy is 100% better than peace. Peace is its own poison, it's stupid, erodes at life, and people who follow it are weak and hypocrites that resolve peace with fighting.
They said, through peace a lot of corrupt systems of hierarchy and shady laws are built, and a lot of
deception goes on within peace.
Would absolute anarchy really BE better than absolute peace?
5 minutes after anarchy broke out, you'd wishing like hell for peace again ;)
You gotta define this stuff better. Many vastly differing scenarios considered anarchy, and peace. But I would advocate for anarchoprimativism over a system that involved prisons and use of force in any capacity other than self defense any day
Fair enough, I guess my analysis is by creating a system where the only violence taking place is legal and the majority of suffering is had by criminals, I don't consider that peace. And aside from some transhuman utopia the only other like extreme possibility is an anarchy but specifically one where business is also taken out if the equation, as businesses really seem to cause more suffering than govt itself. What's tough now is so much of the land is destroyed for one. And we're also highly social beings so we'll stay with other people even if otherwise hunting and gathering is a better deal so to speak. I don't know if coercion alone negates the absence of peace, but if the question is of ideal societies or an ideal planet, I would want non-coercion to be at the core of our values