longer.blue

Many people will tell you that anarchism, as a [sort of] "system" of societal–communal organization, won't work because (to paraphrase a typical claim) "eight billion people can't agree on anything!" Now, I mean, yeah: Realistically, eight billion people **literally** **never**, and ultimately **can't** (logistically, among other various reasons), agree on **any one thing**, but **for the most part** human beings (in general, that is)—the aforementioned eight billion, give or take—agree that they would like (really, they NEED) reliable access to food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education, and this "agreement" is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of them (unless they're real masochists or suffer from severe self-loathing, cynicism, or misanthropy, or have a serious lack self-worth or self-respect—though we could split hairs all day, here...) are demonstrably willing to work 40+ hours a week, almost every week, for most of their waking lives, typically doing exhausting labor, ill-compensated, to enrich a relatively small group of other individuals, mostly just to secure even a fraction of those desires/needs I just listed; plus, most of those people, when well-informed and not misled, naturally tend to support laws and policies that aid them and/or their loved ones in obtaining said desires. It's funny to me how, to so many—especially American Boomers—it's considered quite reasonable that millions upon millions of individuals in **individual countries** are expected to regularly chime in on such issues and make decisions relevant to those issues, but as soon as you propose "upping the scale" to global, universal, and world-ranging matters of concern, this kind of decision-making becomes "impossible".