zlacker

>>obilgi+(OP)
From Wikipedia: Animal Farm by G.Orwell "The book tells the story of a group of farm animals who rebel against their human farmer, hoping to create a society where the animals can be equal, free, and happy. Ultimately, however, the rebellion is betrayed, and the farm ends up in a state as bad as it was before, under the dictatorship of a pig named Napoleon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

>>albybi+N2
One reddit thread suggests it is already heading that way.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/h077uv/raz_simone_...

>>docdee+65
From the OP of that post:

>tl;dw: Man was tagging over someone else's art, Raz and group approach and separate him from crowd, chasing him for two blocks. He begins to film them with his phone, they take it from him. He tries to get it back and they attack him, kicking him in the head and breaking his glasses. At one point, Raz threatens to shoot the man. They then begin to gaslight him that it was all his fault. Audio only for most of the end, because woman in Raz' crew filming puts the phone in her pocket while the stream continues. [1]

So it took about 3 days for this anarchist utopia to demonstrate exactly why police exist.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/h077uv/raz_simone_...

>>ciaran+s6
> So it took about 3 days for this anarchist utopia to demonstrate exactly why police exist.

Yes, but not current american police. What is demonstrated here is that unchecked power is bad, which is pretty close to what the american police currently seems to have, leading to crimes like the one that started the whole protest.

>>solark+cO
> unchecked power is bad

Are you pro individual gun ownership?

The second amendment exists in the US Constitution, first and foremost to balance the power between a populous and would-be tyrants.

>>gonati+u12
Maybe a 100 years ago. The government has invested high tens to low hundreds of trillions of our dollars into the military at this point. Guerrilla warfare on peoples own land is almost impossible to snuff out but the people also can't possibly "win".

>>redism+D42
The purpose of an armed populace isn't to "win" tactically, it's to win strategically and psychologically. It's basically like a poison pill clause, you want to make totalitarian takeover so unpallatable that every victory is a pyrrhic one. You want to force the occupiers to have to choose between killing your own countrymen or defecting, setting up more of a resistance. All the while, you shine light on all the atrocities.

With a sparsely-armed populace, it's easy for the occupying force to roll through without much conflict or challenging decisions.

Winning occurs through attrition of the occupiers, which, unlike Vietnam, can't just "back out".