Slavery is already legal in US if you arrest a person first. That is an exception of the 13th amendment,

I assume that is why US has the biggest prison population in the World and is 6th country in the World by per capita incarceration rate (first western country). If China and India would incarcerate it's citizens as much as US, China would have 4 times and India 10 times it's current prison population. And of course white people are about 8 times less likely to be incarcerated then black people.

"Land of the free"

Are you saying that there is no value in human life if it is someone that lives in Russia?

I agree. Thank you then for your explaining. Sorry for misinterpreting your comment.

That is simply not true. There is a good video about it, but you can also look it up yourself. The term is egalitarian societies and antrhopologists in last 50 years discovered a bunch of currently living tribes with such structures as well as found much of evidence that before agriculture that was the norm.

The workers in those post offices are the one that run the post office, bottom up structure. In Spain during anarchist revolution, people were running every part of society in this manner without appointed leaders: factories, banks, military. And they were doing great. Turns out when you don't have someone at the top leaching all the profits, it ends up pretty profitable for the workers and job becomes a lot easier to do. You can look up anrho-sindicalist war in Spain in 20th century if you don't believe me.

I hope you are aware of how racist it is to call someone degenerate because they live in a certain country.

Anti-migrant racism is strong in these comments. It is amazing how easily people who consider themselves left-wing turn to racism when it helps them politically.

"Close them down, nothing of value in Russia at the moment". while talking about closing borders for Russian refugees. Hardly can be interpreted any other way then talking about human lives. But maybe you didn't know article was about migration, but by title alone assumed it was just sanctions.

That is what happens when a bunch of rich kids try to play equality, while actually growing up as spoiled brats. In true egalitarian societies, which were the norm for 95% of humanities history, people live extremely equal lives where they HAVE to be nice to each other. When you have no choice but to get along with others, you have to take care of other peoples feelings or you can get kicked out of your group and left to fend for yourselves, which in nature is a death sentence. Or since there is no police, just straight up murdered by someone else.

No one is naturally nice, but when you live together with other people, you are forced to be. Unless you have rich mom and dad where you can go back to, if others aren't letting you do what they did.

I have nothing against doing temporary solutions, but I am generally don't really see anyone giving proportional fight for that third real solution, but I see many people spending a decent part of their day reading, talking and getting angry over these incomplete solutions and getting often confused on what is right and what is wrong.

My understanding is that every option where you vote for any party is pretty fascistic choice, and only some parties are better at hiding it then others. All parties generally disguise their ideas as fight for the working class, both racist and "progressive" parties, while both do exactly the same thing in terms of worker rights and interests. I think that pretending to fight for "progressive" ideas while doing exactly the opposite for the conditions that cause that hatred and domination of one group over another, is just as harmful, if not more so.

There is a good video I just watched today about it, I highly recommend it. And I highly recommend spending more time building actual co-operatives, (direct democratic) unions and other horizontal structures opposed to getting caught up in these games rich people play with us. Educating people and yourself of current and past anarchistic movement should be a priority over criticizing and legitimizing these forms of hierarchical systems.

Anarchist movements have military as well, in need they can pick a commander to lead them whose power can be dissolved at any time even without finding an alternative commander. Commanders power is not enforced and anyone can not listen to them. These armies where most efficient in the past, but they were most of the time defeated because both right-wing and so call "left-wing" communist fight them. This is what happened during anarchist movement in Spain, which no one seems to talk about.

What power vacuum? What does that even mean? That somebody is always in power over someone else? If no one is making you do something, you simply choose for yourself. Existence of some kind of a power vacuum would mean that no one can make a decision for themselves about anything, but that some one has to tell them what to do. Which obviously makes no sense, since someone ultimately has to decide. Politics is all about decision making power. If you have no rulers, then people have the decision making power to choose to live as they wish.

Exactly, that is why no anarchist believes in giving someone power that they can't take back at any moment. That is exactly the anarchist point of view, you don't give other people power, no matter what they say they will use it for. Power of a commander can be purely on a voluntary basis, many native american tribes lived exactly this way. Most of the prehistoric humans lived this way. You can choose to follow someone more experienced, but that is purely your choice and at any moment you can just simply step-away if you disagree. No one is saying you can't look for inspiration for making decisions in others, but you should never agree to follow someone whatever choice they make. All armies are made of mere civilians, we are all just people. It is just that some are more experienced then others, for example, by having formal military training or being a veteran. In those situations, people naturally listen to those with more experience, as long as they seem reasonable. Furthermore, you can have formal combat training in societies without rulers as well. So having mere civilians banded together is not a trait of anarchist society.

? A simple wikipedia search shows there is clearly a president of somalia and there is a goverment that is "federal palamentary constitunoal republic". Am I missing something? This is the president of somalia.

So winters in a filed as a solider is somehow safer then under a bridge in a city?

Don't worry, it is a lot harder for sociopath to have control over people in an already free society then in a society where you can use already existing structures of control to gain more control. Never forget, that in a system with no police, anyone can kill you if you try to hurt them. Where there is no state goverment, the people are government. And people make far more effective police to actually protect themselves then these selfish fucks.

Spain was run without government during anarchist revolution in 20th century and their production and technological advancement increased, since there was no one on the top taking all the profits that otherwise would be used for investing in the community and industry. Quality of life is always better in free societies, then when you have to listen to your boss, work long hours and struggle to pay the bills. As far as I know, once Europen children were raised in native amercian egalitarian societies, they would never want to go back to cities and work long hours under someone else's rule.

I don't know much about Amish, but I got the feeling that they are patriarchal society, which is exactly the opposite of a free anarchist society where no one rules over anyone else.

Why mention that you dont have the resources if you are not pretending that you would be for helping them if you could. It is just an excuse to try and hide the fact that you care more about one population then another simply on the basis on their nationality. I hope you understand how racist that is. Not that I accept the notion that civilian unarmed refugees are somehow a threat to the Schengen zone and a "National security", which is most common anti-imigrant rethoric, but how is that ever a higher priority then lives of an entire nation of civilans.

"there’s more to consider than the lives of these refugees or any that would follow" of course, comfort and stolen wealth of the EU is top priority, Lives of human beings are always secondary to profit.

"Just out of curiosity, where are you from?" I know better then to tell a racist where I am from, so they can somehow make assumtions based on my nationality.

This in not true at all. In all anarchist communities, equality is strictly enforced and anyone who tries to get a hold on power is either kicked out or murdered.

Direct democracy isn't supposed to be passive, but in every anarchist community, it is collectively enforced. Republicans (and anyone else) should be actively fought not to be in power, but that doesn't mean by simply giving someone else power to rule over you. We can simply agree to collectively fight anyone who tries to be in power, we can follow who we want in this fight, but no one should force us to follow them and anyone who tries should be collectively fought against as well.

It's a show, not a reality

No one can really know how many people are illegally improsioned, directly or indirectly, through puppet governments, by US or by China. We can either messure by the numbers we have, or we can make up our own numbers. There is no reason to believe that China lies about it's numbers any more then US, everybody uses some loopholes. US is funding many other governments, like Saudi Arabia and Israel to put people in prisons and kill people for them, all around the World. I don't see the point of questioning China numbers and not US numbers.

Any law that prohibits people that are fleeing a war from entering a country is a pro-war inhumane law that shouldn't exist. It is only moral to break any law that stops you from saving someone's life. A lot of people like to imagine that during ethnic cleansing in their countries they would be heroes that shelter people in secret, but it is obvious that even people who consider themselves left-wing, value law (the will of the state) more than human life.

I don't know, but you can say that for any state. Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US, they are offbroad just so they can legally be tortured. It is all play with rules. Do 2 million civilans killed in US invasions in middle east count? Do Palestinians count to be imrpissioned by the US since Israel couln't do it without their support, to trap them in those regions. Either way, even if not inside the country, US definitely is more agressive overall and kills and imprissions more people. It is just that in the western world, their media propaganda is a lot stronger than Chinas.

People who write laws benefit from slavery and having lower economic classes. It was never their true intention to get rid of slavery, but only to calm the citizens that are rebeling against it. Overtime they figured smarter ways of slavery. Free slaves > but because of private property they now dont own anything still > they have to take any job under any working conditions > back to slaves again. If some escape this wage slavery, by not working or something, they make up a reason to arrest them, like vagrancy (illegal to be unemployed or homeless) or for not paying your debts or for some stupid reasons as drugs (planted by cops or not) or even dumber for resisting arrest even if there was nothing to be arrested for in the first place.

No one has a functional state goverment if it's function is to actually help the people. If states function is to keep people in power, and it is, then they are all functional, including Somalian.

It is the people that take power. There where many anarchist communities all around the world, some of them still are. Even back before in stone age, before agriculture, most communities where without a leader and yet they strictly enforced rules. This is just propaganda, so people in power, can stay in power.

There is a good youtube channel called "What is politics?" that talks about these things.

Are you really comparing Jan 6 to fight against Putin? Do you know that leader of main opposition in Russia is in jail for simply being in opposition? Trump is still not in jail after a coup. Of course he can be removed from power, but don't be ridicoulous with claims that people are just lazy or not brave enough. If you even start to organize to critique the goverment in Russia, you go to jail. It is a lot harder to actually form a movement when they arrest you so fast, as soon as you say that you are displeased, let along actually try to form a group for protest, let along an armed revolution. Of course it is possible, but lets not be ignorant and compare it to other regimes.

How can I make an argument against if I agree with you? Did you even read my previous reply? This is exactly what I said, you just pick a battle where no one is disagreeing with you, just so you can feel smart to win an argument no one is arguing against you. What is your next comment going to be, asking again for an counter argument to the same point we are agreeing on?

So it is ok to let people die because of a chance they will illegally cross to other countries?

Becuase only presidents are keeping us from all killing each other? You should read more about existing and past anarchist societies. There is always a lot (if any) violence in anarchist societies, because there are simply no incentives to do it in a place where there is no police to arrest anyone who wants to murder you if you even insult them. All violance and structures of power are very dangerous to anarchist societies so they are very strictly enforced,

It supports the case that it can work. I never made an argument that it always works forever. There are failed attempts, but the cause of their failure is also very important. It is often claimed that somehow, internally, anarchism can not work within a country, while usually the reason anarchisam is destroyed is due to outside invasion or interference. It is simply the case, that anarchist are currently outnumbered, mostly due to opinions like this, that it can not work, so we should try it. If we get a critical mass of enough people, it would be the opposite, states would not be able to survive in a majority anarchistic World, as no one would need to surrender themselves to domination by rulers if they can easily find a better alternative.

I never disagreed with you on this. You just want to argue and feel smarter then everybody.

They are also forced to fight in a war for Russia. But it seems that a lot of people who consider themselves left-wing, don't actually care about stopping a war, but to kill as many enemy soliders. They are pretending that their actions are motivated by compassion for victims of war, while actually they would let as many as people needed to die to hurt the person they hate as much as possible. It is hate, not love, that dictates their decisions.

So they can't stop Estonia from accepting more refugees?

And Estonia could accept people that have their own finances or people that are allowed passage in other countires and etc. There are many ways to work on this if you actually care about these people to help and solve a problem. If all countries acted this way, I won't help because aren't helping enough, we are going to be in a big trouble. I would complain to US and China if this was a post about that and someone was defending their positions, we can turn this discussion as well into, ask others to help as well, instead of just defending this wrong decision by Estonia. Estonian government, if they really care, could put pressure on EU, China or US. You seem to be more focused on China and US, but reallisticly it is the EU that has funds as well and is closer. We should focus on pressure to EU to help house these people, or allow them passage or something.

Besides, I think it is morally unjustifiable to be dependent on EU support so much to help you with these things in order to keep stuff comfortable for already rich people in Estonia, instead of sharing with those less fortunate and help as much as you can. It is better to fight for wellbeing of all people and help what you can, instead of being afraid that you will be kicked out from a selfish EU (if they refuse to help and share this isssue, they are selfish).

Great, then Estonia should accept more refugees and there is no reason to worry about EU having a problem with it.

Did Yanukovich kill anyone who critissized his government? How violent and determined to stay in power was Yanyukovich compared to Putin? Also this is clearly a general anti-migrant comment. "Fix the problem in your country instead of fleeing" is a dangerous and hipocritical rethoric. Why don't you fix it for them if you are more brave then them? Are you fighting in Ukranian war, risking your life being shot at? Or are you at home critisizing someone for not risking their lives enough? There is no reason to force them to fight in a war by not allowing them to enter another country.

Then let them pass through to the rest of the EU. In Europe there is a billion people. As for the wealth, I have no idea why you are comparing it to US. We are talking about whether they should be forced to stay in Russia and it is clear that per capita Estonia is richer then Russia.

He is educating him on exclusively Russian politics.

You’ll note that at no point did I claimed that you said turning them away is in their best interests. But it is reasonable to assume that you where making a claim that closing borders is because Estonia can't help them and not because it is not in Estonia's interests. When you give arguments about not being able to help while discussing border politics, it is reasonable to assume that you are giving a reason for that policy and not just talking for unrelated reason. So if the reason is that borders cant open because you cant help them then borders are closed for allegedly their own good as they will not be helped in Estonia. If it is in their interest to open the borders then that is helping them and therefor Estonia can help. Of course it isn't much help if you are simply not hurting them by trapping them inside their country, but still. When you frame a comment to be about helping them, it is obviously implied that you are concerned with their wellbeing and therefor their interests.

Simply as you used different wording when you told me that I said that you claimed turning them away is in their best interest, so did I. Communication is based on some assumptions and framing things from your point of view, it hard to communicate otherwise.

Also, I am ignoring that you don't have resources for helping them, because it is simply not a point of the article. We are talking about not letting them come in, not necessarly do they need help. Maybe they can catch a plain, maybe some do have Visas, it is not impossible. And when talking about human lives during war, we should be more willing to help.

Besides, I understand that there are a lot of already housed migrants and that is great. But also if they have been there for sometime and some migrants haven't been there at all, would be good to help those already housed reloacate to rest of EU so there is more space for new migrants. After all, I am certain that the rest of EU will more gladly help Ukranin migrants than Russian ones, so focusing on helping them is good. If really the argument is simply not being able to help and etc. The problem is that all of these things are perfectly reasonably solved and that it is clear that intentions aren't really economical, but political.