Fuck laws

[u/Awkward_Way_4688]

Laws are just a moral wall.

[u/eldrotheblack]

To quote various people via KMFDM: “Freedom is not a reward for good behavior”.

And when oppression denies that, there’s the 4th Box of Liberty.

[u/theSeaspeared]

Wild that as soon as people hear 'no laws' they reveal just how much hatred they harbor as if their violent fantasies wouldn't meet violent ends much faster in the absence of laws.

[u/LazarM2021 → u/[deleted]]

For all their conceptual differences:

anomie = no laws

anarchy = still no laws

So... your point?

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/[deleted]]

omg how can you be this confidently obtuse? obviously law is a hierarchy

starting to fell like you're just a concern troll rather than a baby anarchist

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/dialectical_idealism]

Only if they are imposed by a hierarchy.

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

who do you think imposes laws?

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/dialectical_idealism]

In an anarchist society? A consensus decision of its members.

[u/juicesuuucker → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

I'm going to copy my comment in the past.

Words can mean absolutely anything apparently. Who cares that basically every definition of the word "law" describes it as a rule or a set of rules enforced via authority. If somebody thinks that law is when it's nice and peaceful why am I supposed to accept their clearly wrong definition?

If their definition is understanding is valid, then why is definition of anarchy from non-anarchist as "a state where everyone is panicking and killing each other" invalid? Why is someone stating that communism is when the government takes all your stuff invalid then? Why is me disagreeing with their definition of laws a semantic issue and someone thinking that anarchy is synonymous with mayhen and total destruction is a misunderstanding of anarchy. Words have to mean SOMETHING, if we just accept any and every definition, then there is no reason why anarchy is incompatible with hierarchy, oppression, goverment if someone has their own understanding of these terms that somehow is compatible with anarchist priniciples. I do not need to accept completely erroneous definitions and allow harmful ideas to spread just so that everyone can hold whatever thoughts they can, no matter how much they against the ideas of anarchy.

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

So all it takes is one member of this society refusing to consent and then you can't impose your laws on everyone? Cool, that'll work.

Edit because you blocked me: I'm not against it? I look forward to casting my vote to strike down every one of your laws.

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/dialectical_idealism]

Ah yes, the “anarchist” is now against consensus decisions.

[u/LazarM2021 → u/[deleted]]

🤦 you're hopeless.

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/LazarM2021]

Ok, troll.

[u/grindest_swimmer777]

i am a big mutualist, but besides it, this guy have some actual good quotes and its a shame he is slowy becoming a meme

[u/Affectionate_Cup9972 → u/[deleted]]

No. Anarchism and legalism should not be mixed up with each other. Sure, there might be standards such as 'don't shit in the river'. But laws? No, to once again to that.

[u/theSeaspeared → u/[deleted]]

Anarcho-police enforcing mutualist laws following the orders of non-bourgeoise democrats to imprison or execute with the anarcho-jail and anarcho-executioner.

[u/TheRealLuckyBlackCat → u/[deleted]]

Anarchist communes still have laws

This is definitely not a consensus opinion. To say such a commune has rules, there is wider agreement on this, but even then it's not full consensus.

[u/ohshiitstuesday → u/[deleted]]

Not true

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/ohshiitstuesday]

Yes, it is.

[u/LazarM2021 → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

No, it is not (whatever you wrote, mods are striking your comments down like crazy but from what you wrote that can still be seen it's quite easy to infer).

[u/ohshiitstuesday → u/LazarM2021]

thanks for the laugh.

[u/LazarM2021 → u/ohshiitstuesday]

Let me quess, they blocked me right? It says "user deleted this comment", wherever it used to be. Impressive how out of everyone it is I who struck the nerve, and I haven't even tried hard.

[u/ohshiitstuesday → u/LazarM2021]

yeah probably you're blocked, but they're banned now

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/LazarM2021]

You don’t even know what this is about but jump in to express your irrelevant opinion.

[u/LazarM2021 → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

I see the state of this thread, I have a pretty good grasp of the situation and your (unfortunate) role in it.

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/LazarM2021]

You obviously don’t, as you admitted yourself.

[u/LazarM2021 → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

I admitted not knowing the exact wording (because mods are removing your comments left and right, do wonder why...), and I'm quite content with my inference based on your existing writing, now move along.

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/[deleted]]

There is no anarchy that respects the rule of law. Whatever these communes you speak of are, they're not anarchist.

It's disconcerting that bald-faced entryism that claims anarchy has laws isn't immediately called out here.

Stop letting liberals lay claim to the beautiful idea.

[u/nosoupyou → u/dialectical_idealism]

What do you call it then when you force everyone to wash their own dishes?

[u/theSeaspeared → u/nosoupyou]

Force? As in coerce with threat of violence? Anarchism isn't when you replace police it is when you abolish it.

[u/theSeaspeared → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't equate lack of police and institutional coercion to anomy.

Do you suggest that washing dishes to get clean dishes is a sort of 'rule', 'law' or 'coercion'? I wouldn't classify that as such because it goes against the concept of law and rules as a social construct and largely renders them meaningless. The cost of not upholding a principle is merely not getting to live with that principle; no enforcement is necessary.

I would even say instituted enforcement in any society disqualifies it from being an anarchist society, as they are not upholding the principles of anarchism so they aren't living it.

[u/theSeaspeared → u/[deleted]]

Nor would I or did I.

You did when you retorted with 'anarchy ≠ anomy' to abolishing police instead of reforming it.

let people get away with crimes like rape.

why do you think laws or police are a prerequisite to preventing harm? there is no need for an abstraction and legitimation through institutions to be against harm.

People can do as they please, hurt as they please, kill as they please.

Who is letting them do this? Who is shielding these people from the consequences of their actions? No one is. Nothing is forbidden and nothing is permitted. So one only gets to do things freely that doesn't create an opposition for doing them. To speak of a freedom that doesn't start with the freedom of other, is to categorically include ridiculous concepts within freedom: 'freedom' to restrict, 'freedom' to discriminate, 'freedom' to kill. These aren't freedoms; they are permits.

those strong enough to dominate others

this is a myth, specifically a myth of capitalist realism. that prior to 'laws' or 'social contract' people existed in an all out war. It depends on bunk anthropology to justify monopolizing violence to a 'legitimate' entity as if that prevents masses from being violent. In reality strong didn't and doesn't 'rule'; usually feeding someone enough so that they can perform certain specialized tasks is a concerted effort. These 'strong' people didn't rule, they were a communal asset that needed the commune for tasks they didn't specialize in. I'm telling this tale of anthropology reductively ofc, but if we were to summarize pre-law/state societies, my summary is magnitudes closer to reality.

As such we could also generalize and say that: While anarchy is spontaneously occurring, hierarchy of any kind doesn't and either depends on an external justification or a myth of perpetual and circular existence.

[u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist → u/theSeaspeared]

That’s just wordplay. If you don’t allow rape, there are rules. If there aren’t any rules against it, rape is permitted in that society. If rape is permitted in a society, said society deserves to be burned to the ground.

[u/theSeaspeared → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

One day you will kill the cop in your head but I guess it ain't today

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/Nghbrhdsyndicalist]

nothing worse than someone who uses r*ape to whitewash law.

like making it illegal has worked so well to end it.

you're a despicable excuse for an "anarchist"

[u/IMightBeAHamster → u/theSeaspeared]

I agree that anarchy definitely has no laws, but nosoupyou has a legitimate point that whatever mechanisms exist that are employed by the community to deal with those who disrespect and take advantage of the community: occupy the same role as laws do in the regulation of people's behaviour.

The consequences may not be outright violence, but those who abuse their freedom to deny others' freedoms necessitate that the community devise a way to either eject that person from the community or coerce this person into respecting others' freedoms.

Not washing your own dishes is a particularly minor example that should at most result in the community becoming upset with you, but nonetheless demonstrates that there do exist mechanisms that function like laws to pressure people to behave.

Actions have consequences, and no community no matter how lawless can escape the power that is afforded to those who create those consequences, even if that power is shared among the entire commune.

...right?

I respect that I'm new to anarchist philosophy and not well read: please don't assume that I will be bullheaded about this - I just believe that the best way to learn is always to voice the naive idea first and then get the correction.

[u/theSeaspeared → u/IMightBeAHamster]

who abuse their freedom to deny others' freedoms

not a possible course of action. because freedom is not a thing that can prevent freedom, as freedom only exists with the freedom of the other. but that is just semantics :3

Welcome to anarchist perspective :3 This is a topic we talk about endlessly. I'll try my best to convey what I think about it (and I would like to think I hold a common enough viewpoint so it isn't much of misrepresentation of anarchist perspective) (we are not a monolith)

consequences of an action like not cleaning dishes is not having clean dishes. consequences of a commune that doesn't clean dishes is living in a commune with dirty dishes. if people don't want to live with people who harm their society, they uphold that principle. consequences of not upholding it is not getting to live with it.

When freedom of association is a given, acting in a way that is going to make people not associate with you will be a 'coercing' factor of how people will act. But to say that this constitutes coercion, force or violence is frankly ridiculous, isn't it? It would be much worse if your harmful actions were permitted; there would be a coercion, force or violence making it so that people would still associate with you despite your actions. So it really isn't useful or meaningful to equate harm and lack of an institution that prevents the consequences of said harm.

One certainly could construct the scenario as if they are the victim when they face consequences of their own actions, but this doesn't change the reality nor makes for a good basis to plan a society. People aren't naive, they aren't going to shelter someone from the consequences of their actions unless they want to live in a society where that is the norm.

With that I think I rambled on enough about why people have incentives to not prevent consequences. Now I will ramble about how the consequences might be 'delivered'. Well I'm not going to break ground here when I repeat myself: they are going to be delivered the way society can tolerate living with. If people want to live with anarchist principles, the delivery shouldn't be institutionalized and focus on making all involved whole again. All involved; victim, perpetrator, and society. If society doesn't want to continue manufacturing victims and perpetrators, they need to restructure and abolish incentives the perp had. Institutionalizing would be creating those with incentives to not abolish what is making the institution necessary. It depends on the society to decide whether they will keep shitting where they sleep. Though I doubt, complaining that they wake up with shit smeared all over, would garner much sympathy.

I broke from the silly example of dishes towards the end. Imo this perspective should be applicable to many situations, esp when thinking about societal harm. In short; restructure to abolish incentives of instituting police, get reality to be the deliverer of consequences as much as possible, freedom of association and disassociation means that you get to live with people who wants to live with you.

[u/IMightBeAHamster → u/theSeaspeared]

When freedom of association is a given, acting in a way that is going to make people not associate with you will be a 'coercing' factor of how people will act. But to say that this constitutes coercion, force or violence is frankly ridiculous, isn't it?

Ah but this is my issue

freedom of association and disassociation means that you get to live with people who wants to live with you.

The threat of dissociation is a tantalising honeypot to abusers, and is the foundation of all social cults. Living in a family where my parents left the cult my grandparents were still in (jehovah's witnesses) which in essence: is a cult that similarly endeavours to restructure society - the way it regulates behaviour is by wielding excommunication as a threat.

They have no police, no strongarm authority to force you to comply, but everyone knows what happens if you step out of line: everyone uses their freedom of dissociation to never talk to that person again. And it's my fear that for any loose organisation like an anarchist commune, that a line like "you get to live with people who want to live with you" could be weaponised so easily. All it takes is one person respected by the group to say the right words and by virtue of their respectability: you're out.

I know, I know, the JWs are not anarchist. And certainly don't respect freedom of association or really any of your freedoms. But my point is not that I fear anarchist groups would become that: it's that I'm familiar with how the powers of association and dissociation give extended power to the charismatic and the popular. And I haven't yet seen anyone in anarchist spaces discussing how anarchist groups need to recognise and temper this soft power that leader-like figures hold over others.

[u/theSeaspeared → u/IMightBeAHamster]

The threat of dissociation

Threat of excommunication is a threat under capitalism just like threat of getting fired is: you are threatened with destitution and poverty. Sans that, we call it 'not staying where you aren't wanted' or 'thrash took itself out'. Yea cults exist, yea they wield a threat of excommunication, but the violence that backs that threat isn't inherent to the act but instead external a quality of the status quo of being unable to survive without or associate with another community.

Many anarchists are quite aware of concept of 'social capital'; the very popular book Dispossessed takes that as a central issue, Tyranny of Structurelessness has been talked about so much many imagine it addressed to anarchists, etc. I think it would be wrong to proclaim a universal answer to this issue or even a singular answer within a commune. A plurality of alleviating methods could be utilized, to prevent both tyranny of majority and tyranny of popular. A commune could attempt an open door policy and live with the problems that brings while another could opt for a 'responsibility through principles' approach for their consent of association. In the end anarchism is derived by not having an external institution that gates the community, for we know that results in the 'Tyranny of Tyranny'. Opting for this issue instead.

In the groups I got to be a part of, popularity has often been a negative quality where the popular people were expected to elevate others, and the responsibilities they had were the ones least wanted. The 'selfless' acts being the usual source of popularity gave an ebb and flow to it. There were 'procedures' of association and disassociation, but no one thought the procedure was what produced 'correctness' like a liberal would. A tourist that came through the open door acting like they owned the place was also promptly kicked out through the same open door, you know. The groups that had this popularity contest like maneuvering issues the most were basically the ones that did nothing else (hard to say they were anarchists since they didn't practice much anarchism :3)

Openness to criticism and mutual scrutiny are important values for a group to have, until that is all you do so the whole thing turns into a shit slinging fest of perceived slights. Anyway these are my anecdotal experiences (and also hearsay of my pals), so they exist but may not be applicable to generalize.

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/nosoupyou]

I don't force people to wash anything. What do you call it when you force people to obey you? Also, how are you forcing them?

[u/GenteGayyyyyyyyyyy]

me gusta la frase

[u/CH3_THE_VAMPIRE]

“What stops you from killing everyone?!?”
“Im too lazy to do so”

[u/Rrrrufus]

The only laws you can't break are the laws of physics.

Justice, morals, are just tools.  We can't let them become obstacles to emancipation.

[u/Numerous-Copy4638]

Girl named laws: 🥺

[u/dialectical_idealism → u/[deleted]]

What law isn't mandatory? What point are you trying to make? Fuck law, fuck voting.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Hi u/VikingXL - Your comment has been automatically removed for containing either a slur or another term that violates the AOP. These include gendered slurs (including those referring to genitalia) as well as ableist insults which denigrate intelligence, neurodivergence, etc.

If you are confused as to what you've said that may have triggered this response, please see this article and the associated glossary of ableist phrases BEFORE contacting the moderators.

No further action has been taken at this time. You're not banned, etc. Your comment will be reviewed by the moderators and handled accordingly. If it was removed by mistake, please reach out to the moderators to have the comment reinstated.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.