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

So the solution for police not being regulated enough, is for the people to take up arms against them?

Rather than fixing the regulations?

>>Nursie+5n2
Firstly, I never said anything about taking up arms against anyone. I am simply stating the fact that “unchecked power” is impossible when a monopoly of power (force... aka weapons) is held by the state.

History has shown us over and over and over that an unarmed populace will either A) be subject to unchecked violence by its overlords, or B) be successfully invaded by new and less desirable overlords.

Secondly, “fixing the regulations” is not necessary; what is necessary is enforcing the already existing regulations.

>>gonati+p83
> History has shown us over and over and over that an unarmed populace will either A) be subject to unchecked violence by its overlords, or B) be successfully invaded by new and less desirable overlords.

Which is why the UK gets invaded every other week?

Seems an overly reductive viewpoint.