This is a reply to the marvelous, devastatingly eloquent Purple Sage’s answer to a question I asked her, asking if she would talk about why she is in favor of statist communism over anarcho-communism (turns out, it’s more complicated than that). Thinking she was a statist communist, and since I consider myself anarcho-capitalist, I expected that it would take an effort for me to see things from her point of view. I guess radical feminism crosses all boundaries, though, because as it turns out I sympathized with everything she said and there was really nothing at all I disagreed with. I wanted to take the time to really think about the many important things she talked about, so this post is sort of delving off the ideas she discussed in her post.
“I do consider it a compliment to be referred to as a communist, but I’m still at a beginner level with understanding what communism is.”
I hope you’ll likewise take all my views as a “work in progress.” I try to be able to actually change my mind about things, as painful as that process tends to be. I hope my views will always be a WIP, otherwise it’ll mean I’ve given up and stopped learning new things.
“It’s really hard to know what would work because I’m limited to only knowing how it is under our current system, and I can’t possibly compare an anarchist communist system to a statist communist system since I haven’t lived them.”
I feel the same way, but rather than not knowing what sort of political system would be best in a communist society, I feel I can’t predict what sort of economic system(s) would be best in an anarchist society. I see most of society’s practical problems as stemming from the government (though I think the government itself is the result of the deeper problem of our patristic society), and I figure that the economic systems, being the ways that people want to engage with each other to mutual benefit, will self-optimize once the government is no longer controlling the system.
“What I care about even more than I care about anarchy vs authority is whether or not patriarchy has been eradicated.”
That is my fundamental concern too, assuming patriarchy is used to encompass all of the violent and coercive systems we live within, which I think do all stem from the same patristic way of thinking and living.
“What’s most important for women is not whether the government is big or small but whether we can live in safety without being held in domestic servitude and sexual slavery.”
I think the government is a reflection of the people, and the people are a reflection of the government. Our government is violent, paternalistic, retributive, increasingly totalitarian, and a lot of other patristic “power-over” instead of “power-with” things I don’t like, and I think people in our society reflect that, even in how we parent children. To me the type of government we have is an incredibly important issue for creating the kind of world we want to live in.
“Both an anarchist system and a statist system could potentially be bad for women. As I wrote in my post Personal Freedom, when you give unlimited freedom to men, a lot of them make a choice to abuse and enslave women.”
“Although it’s a nice idea to have a small government and everybody just get along and do what they’re supposed to do, I fear what men would do to us if there was no organized society and rules and expectations for decent behavior imposed on them.”
While yes, some people are minarchists, I’m an anarchist, meaning I want no government whatosever, not a small one. No taxes, no government. This essay by Walter Block is what convinced me that minarchism is not a viable improvement over unabashed statism, at least not for long.
This is a common misconception, that anarchism means no rules. What it really means is “no rulers.” I saw a comic once of women in the USSR standing in a bread line, and one woman said to the other, “Poor Americans! They’re all starving, their government gives them nothing to eat!” We have all kinds of “organized society and rules and expectations for decent behavior” that exist outside the government, and that would continue to exist without a government (barring the zombie apocalypse). What I want is for the systems that the government does control – police, the justice system, the mail system, the roads, waste and trash disposal, electricity, water, libraries, etc. etc. to be privatized.
I also have no expectations whatsoever that people would just “get along.” I want a system where people are motivated by practical considerations to behave morally (meaning in a way that doesn’t harm others or externalize costs), and I think an anarchy would be the best system to do that. Any system that just expects everything to magically be bunnies and rainbows would not work.
In an anarchy, within the default capitalist/free exchange between individuals system, there would probably turn out to be four justice systems that people would have recourse to: retributive, exclusionary, restitutional, and restorative.
An anarchist system envisions that everything would be private property, either owned by individuals or families, or owned by larger organizations, like a business, a charity, or a commune. This isn’t too far from the reality already, as virtually all land is owned by somebody, except that in an anarchy government properties would be privatized. Because of this, exclusionary justice would probably be most people’s first resort when faced with violation of the non-aggression principle. If someone was on your property and you didn’t want them there, you could either get out the shotgun, or call whatever police system you subscribe to to remove them, or, if the property belongs to an organization like a socialist group, have your organization’s own police remove them. Just kicking people out can be a very effective way of preventing violent behaviors.
Restitutional justice would probably also be common. Even with our current government-dictated justice system, people already have various types of insurance for when they are victims of crimes, and they receive financial restitution for their losses and injuries. Even with our current system we already are seeing that insurance companies, unlike the government police, are financially motivated to catch criminals and recoup their losses. This system also makes the insurance companies financially motivated to prevent crimes from happening in the first place, again unlike government police.
I expect the third system, retributive justice, would be uncommon, but not unheard of. Our current justice system is retributive, but is obviously only possible with a government spending money they don’t have to earn. Nobody would want to pay $20,000-$70,000 a year out of their own pocket to keep somebody in jail, for anything, much less for victimless crimes like possessing drugs (and if they tried, they would be sued for violation of person and property, unless the person had signed a contract agreeing to imprisonment if they used drugs, etc.).
Most people would be protected from retributive justice by insurance, by being able to sue people for violating their person, property, or contractual agreements, and by having loved ones who would sue on their behalf if they were killed. People living in a socialist or communist system would probably also have additional protections via their organization’s internal justice system. The only people who would be unprotected would be criminals who were so reviled they had been essentially exiled from society. If a person were bad enough, no one would hire them, no insurance company would cover them except at an exorbitant cost, the harm they caused would have likely resulted in them being sued out of all their possessions and property, and if they had alienated themselves from all friends and family and even charitable organizations, they wouldn’t have anyone to protect them. And because everything would be privatized, they wouldn’t have so much as a park bench to sleep on. Such people would be vulnerable to being harmed or killed without the perpetrators suffering much in the way of consequences. Which I’m honestly pretty okay with. If someone like Ted Bundy were ostracized to the point of vulnerability and killed, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
The fourth justice system, restorative justice, is my favorite. Restorative justice is already being practiced by volunteers in many prisons, but it’s hard to counter the harm that prisons do to people, including the increased rates of recidivism compared to people who committed the same crime but weren’t imprisoned. In an anarchy restorative justice would be practiced at the victim’s discretion, and possibly if it turns out to have as good outcomes as I think it will without imprisonment being part of the picture, insurance companies might be financially motivated to offer more money to victims, or jack up the perpetrator’s own insurance less, if they agreed to go through a restorative justice process. Restorative justice is the practice of the victim and the perpetrator talking to a counselor individually, and then together, with the goal of expressing themselves and understanding each other better. The goal is for the perpetrator to understand what the victim has suffered because of their actions, and for the victim to understand the need the perpetrator was trying to fulfill by those harmful actions, and for all three people together to try to find a more effective and less costly strategy for the perpetrator to meet that need. It is easily the most nonviolent justice system, and I doubt everyone, or even most people, would practice it, but I think it would happen a whole lot more than it happens with the government dictating the justice system.
And then, as I mentioned briefly, socialist and communist organizations would likely have their own laws and internal justice systems, which people would have to agree to in order to join the commune (obviously if the laws were too freaky, or conversely too unsafe, no one would join). Those organizations might indeed still have jails, but unlike with a government, people would need to agree to participate in that justice system, rather than being forced to.
“Even in our present civilization with a legal system that supposedly, on paper at least, protects women from harm, it’s still pretty much open season on women, so I certainly wouldn’t want to have less protection that we have now. Which brings me to my next point, which is that even with a state-run legal system, it’s pretty much open season on women, so a state-run system is not going to benefit us either, until we eliminate patriarchy.”
In my view the government is one of the greatest threats to women’s safety. For most of history our governments have prevented women from being recognized as full people, from having autonomy over our lives, and from possessing land and wealth, and our own government continues to legislate against our bodies and personal integrity. In my view governments don’t enable agency for the dominant group, they prevent agency for everyone else.
Personally, I think the concept of a matristic government is not really possible, because governments are necessarily violent and non-consensual – they only exist because of taxes, and taxation is taking people’s money either by force or by threat of force, without the possibility of refusing or opting out. An organization that people freely choose to give their money to is a business, charity, or commune.
If you have a statist communist system, you are putting all your eggs in one basket. There would be no opting out if it turned creepy and totalitarian, and used your money or labor to do things you didn’t like. At least with an anarchy there is variety, and organizations have to be good enough that people consent to participate in them.
“There are some things to be said about statist communism, and that is that it provides women with things like an income and daycare, and therefore doesn’t make us dependent on men. Since women can’t spend their full days providing for themselves while pregnant and breastfeeding and caring for small children, we are dependent on somebody, whether a spouse, an extended family, or the state, to provide for our needs while we are producing the next generation. If women are dependent on the state, there is much less likelihood for wife-battering or marital rape because she can just leave if he’s being abusive. The sex trade also wouldn’t exist if women were guaranteed an income. The elimination of domestic violence and prostitution would go a very long way toward making women safer.”
All of these are serious problems, and I don’t have any easy answers. I do really like the concept of “bringing your child to life” that Jean Liedloff talks about in The Continuum Concept – I think both parents and children would be better off if it were more socially acceptable for adults to include their children in their day-to-day lives, including while working. I’ve also been starting to think that the conjugal system itself might be part of the problematic patristic systems we live in. But I don’t have any settled opinions about that currently.
“It’s an interesting question whether I’m a voluntarist or not. It does seem wrong to me for a government to impose an economic system onto a non-consenting public, so if people don’t want communism, then it becomes morally wrong to impose it.”
As Marshall Rosenberg says, violence always begets violence. The more I learn about what the government does, the more I see it. All of the violent and destructive things the government does stem from it acquiring its money by force, and consequently being able to waste it on nonproductive and often outright destructive projects. The ultimate source of all the violence the government commits is the original violent act of taking people’s money without their consent.
I hold institutions to the same ethical standards that I hold people. If it is wrong for me to rob you and spend your money on whatever I think is worthwhile, then it is also wrong for a government to do that. Just because somebody is robbing me behind the cloak of authority, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, doesn’t suddenly make it okay. Institutions make people pass off responsibility to “the authority” and do things that as individuals they would know are wrong. Stanley Milgram’s experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment are excellent examples of this.
The more inescapable the institution is, the worse it tends to be. The institution doesn’t have a reason to treat its subjects well if its subjects can’t leave when they don’t like how they’re treated. It’s why I’d rather be at a university than in a hospital, and I’d rather be in a hospital than a prison. We all know what’s the most inescapable institution of them all: nothing’s certain but death and taxes. Anarchism would not eradicate institutions by any means, but it would make being part of them as elective as possible. And they’d be smaller and less apotheosized: no one would ever say “my health club right or wrong.”
“Theoretically, I think if people understood that communism means fairness and equality, then they would be for it, and as soon as someone realized that they have more than they need while others don’t have enough, they would be willing to share, and as soon as someone in the first world realized that we are destroying the environment and exploiting other countries with our lifestyle, they would be prepared to willingly change their lifestyle, and that people would be willing to let go of their greed and work together for the greater good, even though it may not be fun.”
“This brings us to a philosophical question: is it morally right to impose the greater good onto an unwilling population that prefers to be greedy?”
“I wish this wasn’t a question at all because I wish that people intrinsically wanted to do the right thing. The fact that people don’t want to do the right thing leaves me in despair and leaves me wondering why I ever bother with anything.”
When the cat has got your tongue there’s no need for dismay, just summon up this word and then you’ve got a lot to say. Even though the sound of is something quite atrocious, it’s supercali…sorry, social Darwinism. Solves so many of my problems when combined with voluntaryism.
People on the left seem to hate social Darwinism because it means believing that people are not all the same, and people on the right seem to hate social Darwinism because, well, Darwin.
The basic concept of social Darwinism is that humans are not exempt from evolutionary pressures, and that we need to create a society that selects for traits we would like to see more of, and selects against traits we would like to see less of. The movie Idiocracy is a social Darwinist’s nightmare. At the top of my list of traits I think humanity would be better off if there were more of are altruism and intelligence. Our society is dysgenic for intelligence – the higher a person’s IQ is, the fewer children they have, and that’s especially true for women, but that’s a different subject.
I think our society is also dysgenic for altruism. A basic observation of sociobiology is that selfish individuals out-compete selfless individuals, but groups of selfless individuals out-compete groups of selfish individuals (true for animals too). Presumably this is because the groups of selfless individuals work together better, allocate resources more optimally, and aren’t trying to exploit each other. However, in order for this to work everyone in the group has to be related, so that when an individual sacrifices themselves or some of their resources, those who benefit are related to them and carry on those selfless genes. In heterogeneous groups, the selfless individuals sacrifice themselves and die off, and the selfish individuals benefit and survive, so a heterogeneous society actively selects for selfishness. And since the basis of morality is caring about others as well as yourself, in order to have a moral society I think we need to have families who stick together. This is why in my ideal fantasy society people would be living in extended kin groups, because I think that would be the most natural and effective way to select for altruism.
This is also why I’m not socialist, because I don’t want the things I earn and make to be given to people who didn’t earn them. That would be dysgenic, because I would be advantaging their potentially maladaptive traits. I am perfectly fine with it if my neighbor, who I strongly suspect is abusive to his girlfriends, is generally drunk, and tried to kill his dog (whom my family subsequently took away from him and adopted ourselves), dies destitute and childless and slips quietly out of the gene pool. Not only would I not give this man my money, I don’t know if I’d pee on him if he were on fire.
If you want people to behave morally but the welfare state is preventing reality from selecting against maladaptive (harmful and nonproductive) behavior, then it turns into a paternalistic government that tries to punish or coerce people into doing what the system wants them to do, and I think that’s just stacking problem onto problem.
I wouldn’t want people to have equal money, because everyone doesn’t contribute to society equally. I am perfectly happy for Bill Gates to have more money than God, and for child rapists to be living in trailer parks. I want people to have what they earn and what is given to them by other people. It’s when people make money by doing things that hurt people instead of help them that I know the system is broken in some way. I think the medical industry is a prime example of this – with the way things are currently set up, doctors (along with drug companies, medical manufacturers, etc.) are financially motivated to keep people in that “sweet spot” between healthy and dead, where they’re on drugs indefinitely and need an ongoing parade of tests and appointments. Problems like this bother me a lot, and while I have ideas for solutions for individual situations like the medical industry, I don’t have an overarching idea for how to set things up so there would never be financial motivation to harm people.
But I do know that harm is only profitable when you can externalize the true costs of the action onto someone else. This is why I want a system where people alternately benefit from or pay for the consequences of their actions as much as possible. For me that means escaping from institutions as much as possible, because I see so much harm resulting from them with so little responsibility being taken, and the government is the biggest, baddest institution of them all.
However, on the other hand, in an anarchy I could definitely see myself joining a socialist organization that wasn’t all-encompassing. If there were an organization only for mothers, for example, that didn’t have any influence on where I lived or what work I did, but where I could contribute a set amount of money at regular intervals and do volunteer work, and then during my own pregnancies I was given a stipend of money or farm produce every week and another mother would come visit me and help me with cleaning the house, doing laundry, running errands, or whatever I needed, and offer advice and emotional support with the new baby, I would join that so fast I’d get whiplash. Again, I think the economic systems would tend to self-optimize if the government wasn’t weighting the dice, because people would want to participate in the best systems available. I bet the majority of people would practice a mix of economic systems, if there wasn’t one government-enforced economic system and currency.
And I would have no problems at all with people creating full-coverage socialist or communist organizations, that provide them with a selection of housing, jobs, and public (“public”) amenities like hospitals and health and dental care, schools and childcare, libraries, police protection and a justice system, a co-op, recreational facilities, etc. etc. The anarcho-communists I know are really, really good people – idealistic, charitable, trying to live humbly and help people. I would be ecstatic if the selfless people all banded together and gave each other all the good things possible. I can appreciate that many people see many advantages to socialism and would like to participate in that system – and there are also plenty of good people who, through no fault of their own, might need financial and social support for extended periods, and might not have a family who can provide that, so a commune organization could act like a chosen family. Maybe such organizations would be like some insurance companies, where the longer you’re a member the more benefits you receive, so that selfish people couldn’t just join when they needed help and opt out as soon as they got what they needed (that would be the purpose of charities, not communes).
And while I generally call myself and think of myself as an anarcho-capitalist, I also have major problems with corporations. They’re institutions, and they have all the usual violent/exploitative/domination-hierarchy problems of institutions. I think free market capitalism would be a massive improvement over the current unholy alliance between corporations and government, so at least corporations would be able to be held more accountable for harm and would have a much harder time externalizing costs. But still, what makes money and what serves life aren’t always the same thing, and anytime there’s a conflict of interest between what’s profitable and what’s moral it isn’t pretty. I wish I had solutions for that.
But my biggest problem with capitalism is I find capitalism fundamentally at odds with voluntaryism, because exchange, rather than giving freely, is really a bribe to get somebody to do what you want. Raping someone by force is obviously violent, but I think paying someone for sex is also violent, because it’s coercive and consequently not truly voluntary. It’s certainly not fully consensual the way having sex because you want to have sex is consensual. And all exchanges, whether with money or trade, are fundamentally coercive like that. The only truly voluntary system is where people do things just because they want to do them. And I think that is also the truly matristic economic system, basing sharing of goods and services on relationships rather than power and control.
So deep down the economic system I am really in favor of is the gift economy. I just have a lot of trouble imaging how that could work out in reality. Who would be motivated to make computers and all the other manufactured goods? So I call myself anarcho-capitalist, because it seems to me that capitalism, or free exchange of money and goods for goods and services, is what automatically results from a voluntary system of free association. But I often wish I had a better solution.
In my ideal society where people stay in family groups, I can imagine the gift economy working out much more easily. In a way, I guess that is really a rather socialist system I’m envisioning, from each according to their ability to each according to their need, but eugenic and more nonviolent, because families that are good at working together and helping each other would thrive, while families with maladaptive behaviors would suffer the consequences of their own dysfunction, without any authority system or compulsion necessary. Then I think there could be a gift economy within the kin group, with people sharing resources and serving each other because they love each other, and with a monetary system and trade being used for exchange outside of kin groups. I don’t know how it could be made a reality, but that’s what I think would be ideal.
As for the question, “Is it morally right to impose the greater good onto an unwilling population that prefers to be greedy?” – anarchists regard that as a fallacy. Immoral people are not going to elect a representative who will force them to be moral. Anarchists tend to view democracy as more like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
“I believe that culture is part of what shapes our personalities, and we live in a culture that specifically promotes and rewards the vices of greed and self-centeredness. One in fact must exploit others in order to survive under capitalism, because the system is designed to run on exploitation. So we have vast numbers of people who believe that exploitation is not only acceptable but unavoidable and necessary, and, in a way, they’re right, because if they weren’t exploiting anybody they’d be earning no money, and if exploitation ended, the whole system would go down. However, if a whole generation grew up in a system that provided for everyone’s needs fairly and without exploitation, then I believe most of them would not believe in exploiting others and would find the idea of exploitation abhorrent.”
I don’t think exchange of goods and services for money is always exploitation. There are many cases where I think it prevents exploitation, of both people and resources, because it makes people literally pay for the benefit they have received at a cost to another (of time, energy, skill, material resources, etc.). In an ideal world money would represent how the good or service that a person has provided to you has made your life more wonderful. It would prevent selfish people from always taking and never giving in return.
Though when people have to make money in order to survive, it can easily become exploitative, because that person is in a position of dependency. I think self-sufficiency would do a lot to prevent this, and then money could be used for “extras,” like computers. I think a more agricultural society, especially with people staying home more and making more of their own goods, would be more inclined to be matristic and nonviolent. That’s another thing I imagine as ideal.
“The question becomes: how do we get there from here? I don’t know, and I don’t think anybody does, because the problem is unfathomably large, but one thing I know is that it won’t be calm or peaceful.”
I think it can ONLY be peaceful (maybe not calm, but nonviolent). Violence always begets violence, and is a patristic solution that will just rearrange the pieces on the board. It would not be an auspicious beginning to try to create a nonviolent society by force. I think any system that is so bad that you have to force people to participate in it is already broken.
As for how to deal with the violent systems we’re already trapped in, I wish I knew. If I knew the answer to that I would know a whole lot of things.
“Since humans are too stupid to cognitively realize what needs to be done and decide to do it, and since we’re trained to value greed and self-centeredness, we’re not going to end capitalism, and it’s going to reach its natural end when there’s no more natural resources to exploit, there’s no more suitable land to grow food on, and all the humans are left to kill each over the last remaining resources. I think this process has begun already.”
Anarcho-capitalists refer to this as the “tragedy of the commons.” When something belongs to everyone, no one is personally invested in taking care of it or conserving its resources, and no one suffers any consequences when it is damaged or wasted, until the damage ends up happening on a massive scale. I think the saddest example of the tragedy of the commons is our oceans. Governments produce tragedies of the commons left and right. Imagine if garbage disposal were privatized, and people had to pay by the pound for what they threw away, with nonbiodegradable and toxic materials costing a lot more to dispose of than compostable and recyclable materials, because those would take up space longer and cost the companies more to handle. I bet people would start thinking long and hard about what they bought and what they threw away. Instead, because the government handles it, no one is responsible, no one pays out of their own pocket for the waste and harm, and the landfills continue to grow with no end in sight.
Anarchism would not completely resolve the tragedy of the commons. We already see it in the absurdly high charges hospitals make – people don’t care what they’re paying at the hospital or doctor’s because their insurance pays for it, so they feel like it’s “free.” When of course it’s really not free, they’re paying for every penny in the cost of their medical insurance. That’s a problem I don’t have any current solutions for.
There are also serious problems when what’s valuable to the owner of the resource is not what’s valuable to the world at large. Pasture might be more valuable to McDonald’s, but rainforest is more valuable to the rest of us. I wish I had better solutions for those sorts of problems – activism is my only current solution, which isn’t great, but then again that’s also our only recourse now anyway.
Though, it’s also worth keeping in mind, anarchism should not be compared against a hypothetical problem-free utopia. It should be compared against statism. Anarchism would not solve all our problems, by any means. But personally I think it’s one of the most important things for creating a matristic society.
“North Americans keep electing conservative politicians because our primary concern is keeping all the money in the hands of the rich and not sharing.”
Such is the nature of government, in my opinion. It’s a massive hoard of money and power, obtained by force. Of course it’s going to attract the Negans of the world, either overtly or covertly. Most moral people wouldn’t touch that morass of exploitation with a 50-foot pole, because we’re busy trying to actually help. And since there’s all kinds of evidence that it’s corporations’ campaign donations and funded advertising that get politicians elected with pretty darn predictable results, I think it’s even a stretch to say that “people” are electing these puppets at this point.
“What would my utopia look like then, if human beings could survive the fall of capitalism and if we could create a better civilization? When I imagine a utopia I don’t necessarily even think about statism versus anarchism, because what I think about is what should be produced and how, and what values humans should have. We should only produce what we need to be healthy and happy, and we should produce it in a way that provides for everyone equally and doesn’t destroy the environment. What humans realistically need to produce is just enough food to keep us full, and houses big enough to shelter us and clothing that can keep us warm, and tools to help us with the processes that we need to perform. Then we need things related to health care, transportation, culture, etc.”
I imagine a rather different future world. I want the singularity to happen, I want some combination of biological and technological transhumanism to allow humans to decide if, how, and when we die, and I want humans to explore the galaxy. In the meantime, towards those ends, I want a more nonviolent social structure based on “power-with” instead of “power-over,” and I want people’s relationships to be a support and comfort to them as they learn more about truth and beauty through art and science. I want humans to be the galaxy’s, possibly the universe’s, way to know itself. I want humanity to evolve into something better than I can imagine.
“We should gain happiness from the basic things that human beings derive happiness from: spending quality time with our loved ones, eating together, seeing our children grow up, creating culture, and enjoying the beauty of nature.”
I agree. That’s why I avoid addictive processes and try to live virtuously. Hedonism is not productive, and ultimately becomes self-destructive. I think people who engage in addictive processes are not really looking for happiness, they’re looking for an escape from pain. Profound relationships and attachments, simple pleasures, and gratitude make life worth living, to me.
“We should design a system that requires these positive values to make it run, and that minimizes human vice.”
Hallelujah amen to that! That’s exactly what I want too.
“Whatever system can do this is a good system.”
Well, I don’t know about that. I tend to think that immoral means result in immoral ends. And I certainly wouldn’t want to wind up in some kind of “benevolent tyranny” like The Giver or Brave New World.
“I don’t know how to do this, but I do know that the question of how to create a better system should be the foremost concern of humanity right now, not dumb shit like what the Kardashian family is up to these days. I also know that we have enough research and knowledge already, as a species, to figure out how to create such a system, and we could do it, if we weren’t so stupid and greedy.
“Sorry if that was depressing!”
This anarchist video sums up my philosophy for dealing with seemingly impossibly huge problems.
We have to be the heroes we wish to see in the world. The revolution is a lifestyle.
And if it doesn’t work out, the apocalypse might be fun too. I’d finally have a use for my knife-throwing skills.