OK so how are the rules upheld?
A democracy is a rule by the people who are ruled. What function would make anarchy better?
Who is this ruler that isn’t present? How are rules decided? Who enforces those rules?
The only way I see to perform these functions rationally is by democracy.
Democracy (proper democracy) is literally a social contract my dude. Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions. Are laws the only thing keeping you from not doing things??
In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
In an anarchy people need to work out their social rules together.
There could also be Anarchist societies with a police force, that ensures the basic democratically created roles of that society are followed - like protecting people from just more muscle who want to rape or steal from them.
It could be? Being a democracy or using democracy as a tool for decision making doesn’t mean it has to happen through government. If you’ve ever made a decision with a friend group via popular vote, does that make you a government? Or did you exercise authority over your friends when they all agreed popular vote was okay to decide where to eat out? I wager neither
And fyi, you’re thinking of a representative democracy, which is rarely ever truly fair, especially considering the scale it’s supposedly applied to.
Yes laws are the reason I drive on the right for instance. It is very practical that we all use the same laws in traffic.
Now you may think this is obvious, but compared to many other things, traffic is dead simple. Without regulations it will be chaos, and meaningful form of anarchy is chaos.
You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
Because anarchy isn’t chaos my dude. And funny you should bring up traffic laws considering many countries have different traffic laws - and yet no one has an issue with that. Hasn’t disturbed anyone.
Anarchy isn’t just democracy (which technically, democracy is a no-cracy since the “power” being in the hands of the people - aka everyone - makes it obsolete, so there isn’t really a -cracy). Anarchism looks at existing systems and unravels them little by little and pinpoints which aspects of our behaviour and our lives have been dictated by what - and how they would be different if no one forced them to be so. In an anarchist society there wouldn’t be much to agree on concerning traffic safety because, simply put, it would follow the standard method of figuring out what works, like how traffic laws are mostly made now. Only difference is if a rule was deemed unhelpful or harmful, the people could contest it a lot more easily because they give a shit about their loved one’s safety
funny you should bring up traffic laws considering many countries have different traffic laws - and yet no one has an issue with that. Hasn’t disturbed anyone.
Oh boy maybe I should just rest my case here. Who claimed the rules had to be the same in different countries? Choosing to drive on the left or right is completely arbitrary, which is why a decision needs to be made to improve the flow of traffic and lower accidents. Without rules for traffic it would be chaotic.
Your response is arguing a complete strawman, why the fuck would I have a problem with a tiny island like Japan and Great Britain drive on the left?
What I DO have an issue with is ghost drivers on the Autobahn that drive in the wrong side of the road at high speed.
How is that not obvious? … Well I guess it’s not obvious in much the same way it’s not obvious to you that anarchy can’t work at scale much beyond small tribal groups.
Large systems still depend on small ones. This is just a fundamental disagreement on how systems work and our understanding of them. You think anarchism means “yeehaw do whatever”. I don’t. This conversation is pointless. And I only talked about traffic for a second, responding to your example.
Anarchy was our first system and it’ll probably be our last. And for a lot of groups of people who have been forgotten and abandoned by the rest of the world, it’s all they have. It’s not about “driving on the other side of the Autobahn”, tf? We understand that anarchism isn’t something you can revolution your way into. It’s the principles and way of life of caring for others and collectively dragging the boot off of people’s necks without depending on/outside of a system that’s designed to marginalize and exploit people.
So you can take your “but muh rules” to someone who cares.
Anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers.
OK so how are the rules upheld?
A democracy is a rule by the people who are ruled. What function would make anarchy better?
Who is this ruler that isn’t present? How are rules decided? Who enforces those rules?
The only way I see to perform these functions rationally is by democracy.
Democracy (proper democracy) is literally a social contract my dude. Anarchism uses democracy and consensus to make decisions. Are laws the only thing keeping you from not doing things??
Genuine question: Is that not a democracy?
No, as there are no leaders
In a democracy you give your vote and have no say afterwards.
In an anarchy people need to work out their social rules together.
There could also be Anarchist societies with a police force, that ensures the basic democratically created roles of that society are followed - like protecting people from just more muscle who want to rape or steal from them.
You’re restricting democracy to mean representative democracy?
It could be? Being a democracy or using democracy as a tool for decision making doesn’t mean it has to happen through government. If you’ve ever made a decision with a friend group via popular vote, does that make you a government? Or did you exercise authority over your friends when they all agreed popular vote was okay to decide where to eat out? I wager neither
And fyi, you’re thinking of a representative democracy, which is rarely ever truly fair, especially considering the scale it’s supposedly applied to.
Yes laws are the reason I drive on the right for instance. It is very practical that we all use the same laws in traffic.
Now you may think this is obvious, but compared to many other things, traffic is dead simple. Without regulations it will be chaos, and meaningful form of anarchy is chaos.
You can’t have consensus on everything in any society, it’s impossible, so if Anarchy is merely democracy, why than call it anarchy?
Because anarchy isn’t chaos my dude. And funny you should bring up traffic laws considering many countries have different traffic laws - and yet no one has an issue with that. Hasn’t disturbed anyone.
Anarchy isn’t just democracy (which technically, democracy is a no-cracy since the “power” being in the hands of the people - aka everyone - makes it obsolete, so there isn’t really a -cracy). Anarchism looks at existing systems and unravels them little by little and pinpoints which aspects of our behaviour and our lives have been dictated by what - and how they would be different if no one forced them to be so. In an anarchist society there wouldn’t be much to agree on concerning traffic safety because, simply put, it would follow the standard method of figuring out what works, like how traffic laws are mostly made now. Only difference is if a rule was deemed unhelpful or harmful, the people could contest it a lot more easily because they give a shit about their loved one’s safety
Oh boy maybe I should just rest my case here. Who claimed the rules had to be the same in different countries? Choosing to drive on the left or right is completely arbitrary, which is why a decision needs to be made to improve the flow of traffic and lower accidents. Without rules for traffic it would be chaotic.
Your response is arguing a complete strawman, why the fuck would I have a problem with a tiny island like Japan and Great Britain drive on the left?
What I DO have an issue with is ghost drivers on the Autobahn that drive in the wrong side of the road at high speed. How is that not obvious? … Well I guess it’s not obvious in much the same way it’s not obvious to you that anarchy can’t work at scale much beyond small tribal groups.
Large systems still depend on small ones. This is just a fundamental disagreement on how systems work and our understanding of them. You think anarchism means “yeehaw do whatever”. I don’t. This conversation is pointless. And I only talked about traffic for a second, responding to your example.
Anarchy was our first system and it’ll probably be our last. And for a lot of groups of people who have been forgotten and abandoned by the rest of the world, it’s all they have. It’s not about “driving on the other side of the Autobahn”, tf? We understand that anarchism isn’t something you can revolution your way into. It’s the principles and way of life of caring for others and collectively dragging the boot off of people’s necks without depending on/outside of a system that’s designed to marginalize and exploit people.
So you can take your “but muh rules” to someone who cares.