That's the unfun answer of getting people to agree that's on the ballot this year. 538 shows that today, that teaberry is only one point down. Best to ignore the polls and Vote Blue!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
That's a large family you have there with over 340 million people.
You want a consensus that agrees with you and your way of doing things which cannot be obtained through a stateless society. A stateless society lacks a consensus yet still has the benefits of state based society. A dictatorship is an imposed consensus which is the only way to get what you want.
You already have teaberry ice cream. You want a teaberry dictator.
To summarize, you don't want ice cream anarchy, you want an ice cream dictator who agrees with you.
Make your reflex save.
Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.
Again, this is accomplished with state based societies currently. Minorities are protected. The actions of groups and individuals are tolerated as long they adhere to the social contract of tolerance themselves.
The question is about what a society as a whole will decide to do when faced with a choice where it can only chose one or at least not all of the available options.
What your strategy proposes is effectively succession where a larger group breaks itself into smaller groups. Each group will then face this same problem. What to do in when they have to choose some, but not all available options.
Their original identity may prove insufficient to provide a clear answer or perhaps some of the group's identity will have changed over time. Either way this algorithm would have us divide the population for every decision where there is a disagreement until every individual was essentially isolated.
Your not getting the larger groups consensus which was supposed to be the appeal of this analogy with the proposed national ice cream flavor. Worst of all, there isn't going to be a lot of ice cream going around if no one works together.
Your analogy tries to have its ice cream and eat it too. It starts with the promise of group consensus, but then fails to deliver on that by establishing smaller groups that deny the possibility of any consensus. And those groups can't even produce the ice cream they think everyone should eat.
The state is why I’m forced choose between freezer-burnt Dollar General vanilla-flavored refrigerated dairy byproduct and a literal frozen turd.
Again, this is specifically a consequence of a fptp system which mathematically arrives at a two-party system given enough time. A state based society with ranked choice or approval voting system would allow for a wider range of options. Each of the groups created by your strategy provides one option to whoever finds themselves in such a group. So not only does the strategy fail to deliver on more options it actually delivers fewer options.
No, there can only be one ice cream flavor considered to represent the group as whole in you analogy for it to even be internally consistent. Making other people eat wasn't the best phrasing, it's more making other people decide it's their favorite which is even harder.
Your group of teaberry enjoyers assumes that in the absence of the state your group could determine what everyone's preferred ice cream is, not which ice cream they could actually eat. Which ice cream could be consumed by individuals or groups was never the question at hand. Instead we are asking what is considered the larger group's preferred choice as whole which is still an open question in the absence of the state. And undoubtedly best determined by the majority of people in the absence of an ice cream that satisfies everyone.
You can already enjoy whatever ice cream you want currently. Deciding what everyone's favorite or preferred option is not a power suddenly invested in anyone in the absence of a state. In a sense no ice cream enjoyer is an island.
It is based on your analogy. There wouldn't be a national ice cream flavor in a stateless society definitionally speaking.
Saying the genocide should end and that Israel has a right to defend itself aren't mutual exclusive statements. The fact Israel's government is committing genocide does not mean Israel's citizens, many of whom are Palestinian, deserve genocide. The fact Hamas kills civilians does not justify the IDF killing civilians. Two wrongs do not make a right. edit: typo
Turning back to the students, Harris acknowledged his claims, saying that “what he’s talking about, it’s real. That’s not the subject that I came to discuss today, but it’s real and I respect his voice.”
This is from the second source in your argument. She acknowledges what is happening even if she isn't in a position to call it a genocide politically. Your argument is splitting hairs about semantics.
Repeating her call for a ceasefire, she said that she hoped the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar would present an opportunity to end the war.
Another call for a ceasefire.
She’s also still repeating the debunked Oct 7th rape claims, and more.
Your argument is repeating debunked claims. There were some false claims, but those have been used to incorrectly dispute what happened at large.
In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and other armed groups against civilian and military targets throughout the Gaza periphery, the mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations during the 7 October attacks, including rape and gang-rape in at least three locations, namely: the Nova music festival site and its surroundings, Road 232, and Kibbutz Re’im. In most of these incidents, victims first subjected to rape were then killed, and at least two incidents relate to the rape of women’s corpses.
The U.N. team investigating sexual violence said it saw “credible circumstantial information which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
Hamas is bad. The IDF is bad.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/06/20/un-evidence-sexual-violence-hamas/
The commission also found that Israeli forces in Gaza had committed sexualized and gender-based violence during their military campaign, targeting men and boys in particular.
With anarchy you have to get yourself that flavor and make everyone else eat it too. It would still be easier to do in a democracy.
Your argument's assertion is false. Harris has stated she wants a ceasefire multiple times. This comment said it best.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
Or will the encroachment of Christmas continue in America until it reaches July 4th?