With Bukele ruling over El Salvador, are they closer or further from anarchy?

#asknostr

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I assert closer given the proliferation of Bitcoin there.

Closer. Way closer. But idk, still haven't gone

how can you have anarchy while also being ruled by a dictator

Bitcoin is anarchy.

if your dictator doesn’t like you, he will throw you and your bitcoin into jail for no reason other than he can.

Bitcoin can't be jailed. And being jailed doesn't mean your Bitcoin goes away.

but you are rotting in prison. that isn’t anarchy it’s tyranny

Who's rotting in prison? And what reason?

your question was is El Salvador closer to anarchy because of Bukele. The answer is no IMO.

Is bitcoin anarchy? Is there more bitcoin in el Salvador?

it’s not that black and white lol. you can have all the bitcoin in the world but if you live under a violent dictator they can do to you what they want. In el salvador people are jailed without due process. is the bitcoin helping free these people or give them a fair trial?

bitcoin isn’t going to save you from masked thugs

My Bitcoin is safe from masked thugs.

good for you. you should move to el salvador

High brow retort.

You do understand who was jailed without due process? Satanic thugs.

I prefer innocent until proven guilty, but that’s just me. 100 criminals loose is better than 1 innocent man jailed.

Regardless of your opinion on due process, the fact that this is happening in el salvador is antithetical to anarchy. if anything, gangs ruling is anarchy lol.

You misunderstand the meaning of anarchy. It's part of the propaganda we were all exposed to in school.

I understand that you are implying freedom, I disagree.

How do you define freedom? Or maybe, freedom from what?

freedom from any one man deciding my fate without due process is a pretty big one

You keep using "due process" but we should define it. And determine who defines it for everyone?

Bukele determines it for everyone in El Salvador. sounds like a dictatorship. do you disagree?

Sounds like less rulers than before.

This smug answer is only because you are not the next victim getting raped, extorted, beaten or murdered by the 100 loose criminals.

what happens when the government uses the power you gave them on you? what happens when they’re done with the violent criminals but retain absolute power? you think you’re just free to do whatever you want? it’s not going to be a freedom utopia. it will be a totalitarian state as long as Bukele rules.

As a strong man equipped for violence, I’d fight back. I’d refuse to live in a world where weaker people must live in fear because someone far away has stupid ideals that result in evil gangs running the country.

stop by and pick me up on the way.

They were not jailed without due process. Just because it wasn’t the US process doesn’t mean it wasn’t due process.

so you believe el salvador is closer to anarchy/freedom now than before bukele?

you believe they are *less* totalitarian?

💯. Children, women, elderly, and anyone else physically weaker can once again walk the streets without fear of the strong men who did whatever they wanted ruining their lives.

can also do that in China. what’s your point?

Living in China would have been a wonderful improvement for the far majority of people living under gang violence in El Salvador, that’s the point.

I think we just disagree on the definition of freedom

No, we disagree about what other people should have to live under so we can be pompous about our ideological purity regarding freedom.

walking around clean streets without fear of being attacked does not mean you live in a free society. at all.

Walking around filth infested streets constantly in fear does mean you live in a failed society though. Only someone living in an ivory tower would prefer that for someone else.

depends on what you mean by “anarchy”

the left and right extremes of its meaning are so vastly disparate it might be one of the least useful words in english.

It's meaning is one thing. "Without rulers"

Are leaders “rulers”?

Like a commander, platoon leader, or a squad leader? A mother or father?

If a ruler is simply the head of a hierarchy, if that is its essence, then it’s not congruent with reality, a speculative fantasy which denies the implicit hierarchical nature of human beings.

Idk. Maybe that's the question. This stemmed from philosophical debate around Romans 13, BTW.

Interesting. I think the driving principle here is the relation and distinction between authority and power.

Tyrants and “the state” use power to claim “authority” over others.

The invert the relation.

In Catholic teaching, and Natual Law philosophy, authority references the legitimate holding of a seat or position, and that is the source of power.

So when I read 13 romans, its just saying, a father holds authority over his children, and thus has been given power over them. that power exists only insofar as he maintains his position dutifully, adhering to all his responsibilities.

Then just extend the father child relation to up societally to nations

Do you think anarchy is compatible with Christianity?

replied to the other one

You have to knock the tables over.

🤝🤌

Further from utopian anarchy

Still in the same kind of dystopian fake-civilized anarchy as most countries, basically