zoinks - eviltoast
  • Smookey4444@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The point is very true. We never gave the state the right to control us, it’s something they seized for themselves.

    • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Sovcits are people who are angry about the government being shit, but can’t imagine that it doesn’t need to be a thing. Also they think laws are magic spells.

      Its like a petty attachment to the privileges and entitlement of a fucked up system while recognizing that its overall bad for you.

      Sorry if that’s the only resistance to authority you’ve ever encountered.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.auOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 day ago

      They’re not the only anti-statists in the world.

      Anarchists want the destruction of the state, for the benefit of peoples wellbeing.

      SovCits want the freedom to do whatever they want and don’t care about society.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The obsession with personal contracts is more properly ancap shit, considering actual socialists are very aware of the idea of social contracts

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          14 hours ago

          actual socialists

          rThis is an anarchist comm. While many anarchists consider themselves socialists: I don’t think it’s a good look to come into an anarchist comm and talk about how “actual socialists” don’t do that. Could be seen as violating a rule here, even.

          Individualist anarchists reject the social contract outright. But those are relatively rare.

          There is a critique that contracts should be entered consentually. And collectivist anarchists generally are in favour of freedom of association. But you could argue that this is merely a semantic argument about social contract theory.

          • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            those are relatively rare

            And usually into stirner, which is problematic as fuck and frequently hard to take seriously but several orders of magnitude less fucking stupid than sovcits.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Oh violating the anarchist community rules huh

            Some kind of mutually agreed upon means of a community organizing itself perhaps, where even if an individual didn’t decide them personally engaging within it binds them to a code of behavior?

            Dumbass lol.

            Like I said, all real socialists understand social contracts.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Oh violating the anarchist community rules huh

              You’re confusing anomy with anarchy.

              Some kind of mutually agreed upon means of a community organizing itself perhaps, where even if an individual didn’t decide them personally engaging within it binds them to a code of behavior?

              That sentence is in reference to what, exactly? That sentence is unnecessarily hard to parse.

              Dumbass lol.

              First of all: rude and uncalled for. Second: That’s rich from someone who thinks pointing out that an anarchist community has rules is a gotcha. 🙄

              Like I said, all real socialists understand social contracts.

              Good for them. Got anything to add that’s not a non-sequitur?

              • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 hours ago

                I think what they’re going for in the current context of the meme is something like:

                “I didn’t contract with this comm, therefore the mods can’t tell me what to do.”

    • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah. Everyone knows there is not any kind of contract people sign. States exert control by their nature of controlling certain areas within borders, and you being born there or immigrating there subjects you to its control. This does sound very similar to sovcit rhetoric given their whole focus on contracts and legal agreements you’ve somehow unknowingly made with the state but still exist out there somewhere. (though I get that’s probably not the actual OP’s intent with this ofc)

      Whether the existence of the state(s) to exist as a structure of power is a good thing is another question, though.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Sovcits treat the law like it’s some arcane art. Anarchists usually employ power analysis to uderstand where laws come from.

        But social contract theory is employed by statists to justify the state. So ridiculing it is fair game without being called a sovcit.