rysiek ✅ @rysiek

@Killervalentine3 @batko @jd 1. I assure you I read your responses.

2. calling people "smug liberals" is not getting us anywhere. If you don't want to talk, just say so, instead of calling people names.

3. your quote does *not* answer my question. Here it is again for you:

What if a community member breaks existing community rules in a way hurting the community badly? I am talking about the rules already agreed upon in the community.

@Killervalentine3 @batko @jd what if it's not"not stopping on red", what if it's killing another community member? Or stealing communal resources? Or otherwise hurting the community in a bad way?

@hntooter 504 Gateway Timeout. Goodbye "Goodbye Mozilla", I guess... ;)

@Killervalentine3 @batko @jd and what happens if a community member breaks these rules?

@Killervalentine3 @jd @batko it does.

Doesn't an anarchist community have rules or bylaws?

@Killervalentine3 @batko @jd well, I am using this definition of the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

"a state is any politically organized community living under a single system of government."

And so far everything you have said fits this definition.

@Killervalentine3 @jd @batko it is not, because it has no monopoly on using physical force.

But any physical community will sooner or later have to handle some outburst of physical force.

@Killervalentine3 @jd @batko but that's exactly my point. It's still an OS. You will still have rules/laws to live by, you will still have people breaking them, and people enforcing them. You will still have hierarchies, even if only implicit.

It'll still create a state.

@Killervalentine3 @batko @jd as far as I can tell with this analogy "fixing your computer properly" would mean completely removing the operating system.

My point is you will have to install *some* operating system one way or the other anyway. So instead of saying "let's abolish operating systems" seems to me it's more sane to say "let's create a good operating system".

@jjg @Antanicus @jd @Melezh thank you, Sir! :)

I love how nice and civil the discussion was even though obviously there was a number of conflicting views expressed.

I remember similar discussions on other channels that almost immediately ended in a shit slinging competition (I specifically remember being called a "fscking statist").

Viva la Federación!

@Antanicus @jjg @Melezh @jd absolutely. Healthcare is a pretty great example here, since it's where often a lot of resources has to go into equipment, infrastructure, etc., to be able to manage certain conditions, or to be able to respond in time (think: 5min response time of ambulances).

@jjg @Melezh @Antanicus @jd sure thing. Thing is, scientists' survival is often the smaller part of the resources that go into science. Equipment costs trump that easily.

Not to mention large, complicated projects like the LHC or LIGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

And if we're talking about terraforming (which we are), we are talking large and complicated...

@jjg @Melezh @Antanicus @jd no doubt about it. I am more concerned about science than industrialization. Science needs strong institutional support.

@jjg @Melezh @Antanicus @jd *if* we can convince everyone there is no "other", just "us".

So far, we are failing at this.

@Melezh @jjg @Antanicus @jd for that you need a large interconnected system of science, technology, communication, fabrication, etc. Not saying it's impossible, but small communities will have problems supporting large infrastructural projects.

@jjg @Antanicus @jd @Melezh sure, but if there's this rule of "find less habitable space for your community", that's a strong incentive *not* to for a community. Feels like punishment to those in the fork.

@Melezh @jjg @Antanicus @jd oh that is entirely true! However, there will still be conflicts among communities over the most habitable parts of the world, and over available resources, etc.