If the upholding of your “rights” is dependent on which administration is in power, you don’t have rights.

Yeah it really depends what you’re talking about. Our politics are pretty whack. There’s a small amount of that good libertarian socialist energy here that bleeds over from Vermont and Maine, and I do feel like that is intensifying as Trump wields his heavy hammer of federal government, but I think a good chunk of that energy gets stolen and redistributed by bigots. We’ve never really had someone like Bernie to channel it.

But outside of politics we’ve got mountains, we’ve got lakes, we’ve got beaches, we’ve got some small cities, and Boston’s just a day trip away. I’ve always enjoyed that aspect. But yeah. New Hampshire. Live restrained and hike a little. See a loon. Then die.

As a lifelong NHer, I feel obligated to say fuck you buddy. Nobody calls NH shit but NHers.

As a person with a brain though you’re pretty much right lol

But idk I mean I think I’d rather live here than like Connecticut or Rhode Island.

I agree with you but it’s just difficult when you have groups like Libertarians of NH posting this shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no

Directly targeting schools that allow protests

Sounds like a constitutional crisis to me, no?

No actually you are totally right and I’ve made a big mistake. I thought I remembered him going to the island, but he just met with him a couple times. His reaction was pretty poor, but I don’t think there’s evidence he went to his island. I’ll edit my comment. Thanks for pointing that out.

I consider Understanding Power an essential read, but really soured on Chomsky as a person when he defended his going to Epstein’s island meetings with Epstein. I still think people should read him but not glorify him.

Edit: there is no evidence, as far as I’m aware, Chomsky went to Epstein’s Island. I misremembered.

I agree but also I think you’re getting at a broader issue of the cooption/reclaimation of words, and the problem of language being fluid.

Unfortunately for anarchism, its been an uphill battle. In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates refers to anarchy in the negative context we mostly see it used today, similar to just pure chaos.

The term was reclaimed by Proudhon in the 19th century as he developed anarchist philosophy, but I’m not sure the term ever really got divorced from the negative connotation it had. And so I think we still see people use anarchism to refer to any anti state belief, or chaos, in general. Are they wrong or right? Eh. Id like to say they’re wrong because I was really moved when I read Kropotkin and Graeber and whatever. But then again, I’m not gonna really get mad when someone uses “gentleman” for a polite man instead of a member of the landed gentry or whatever the term “gentleman” used to mean.

This is all me being an armchair linguist though and kinda talking outta my ass so take that for what you will

Edit: I just read your objection about the mischaracterization of anarchism as a movement because of all this – and yeah that is a problem for sure. It does make it difficult to describe to people, “I’m not talking about anarchism like you normally think, like pure chaos. I’m talking about anarchism as a political philosophy. See, in the 19th century there were these dudes…” Yeah, that gets pretty old. But idk my opinion is conflicted on this because my personal philosophy around language tends liberal due to their fluid nature

Yeah yeah, I gotchu. Overall, great meme

Agree 100% but wanna add that some right wing libertarians like to glob on to the A because they fashion themselves as chaotic or watched V for Vendetta one time and now have Batman complexes. Obviously they are completely ignorant of anarchist philosophy. I think the OP is similarly ignorant here (sorry OP, not meaning that as a slight against you – most people think anarchy just means no government or chaos or whatever)

Edit: oh yeah, as others have mentioned there are also ancaps, which are oxymoronic but I’m sure they don’t really care

Ending federal government != ending hierarchy or the state. As you said yourself, they’re radical libertarians, not anarchists.

“Right-wing anarchists” makes me wanna puke. I think libertarian freestaters is probably a more accurate name.

Ask your conservative family members why Trump dropped charges on a Democrat

His own thing is still Project 2025 unfortunately.

Okay yeah I get you now.

I think you have a good point but I do think it could be sooner. If Newsom thinks Trump may cause more damage to to his state than aid (I’m thinking about lack of disaster relief, draining of reservoirs, sending military in to deal with protests, raiding schools for illegal immigrants, stifling scientific research, going after “woke” speech), what choice will he have ?

Already, schools in Massachusetts are informing school nurses not to comply with ICE if they come through. What happens when Trump says that Massachusetts is defying the law and goes after leadership there? Will Massachusetts bend?

But I think ultimately you may be right, I suppose it might depend on how antagonistic Trump is toward blue states.

Could you expound on that? I don’t think average Americans will be able to stop what’s going on because we are too busy with work, families, and entertainment. And if, by chance, we are paying attention to the news, the 24 hour cycle and social media algorithms put some new thing in front of our faces before we have the time to process what we just saw.

Do you mean states aren’t going to be that proactive, so they won’t break away?

We are living through the greatest constitutional crisis of our lifetimes – maybe since the Civil War. The US has never seen anything happen like this domestically. We are rapidly moving toward the dissolution of the US and civil war.

If the courts do not prosecute Trump and Elon Musk, which is highly likely, the assault on EVERY federal service and source of funds will continue. “Throwing it back to the states” will cause the states to contract – without confidence in any federal assistance or regulations, states will need to figure it out themselves – and if they start seeing the federal government as something they need to protect their citizens from…well, why would they remain a part of that federal government? If the US government is completely unreliable due to the massive brain, experience, and regulation drain, what reason do states have to remain a part of that? Especially when the feds want to restrict speech and expression in the way they do.

And if the courts somehow slap down Elon and Trump and they are removed? Then we’ve got violence from the J6ers and likely more.

We very well might be witnessing the end of the US, as I see it. But maybe someone can offer some counterpoints

We are in so much fucking trouble.