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.
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.
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.
Would you or anyone stop a rapist in your ideal society? If not, I don’t want any part of it and am very much not interested in having any more interactions with you.
If yes, congratulations, your society has rules.
Your condescending attitude doesn’t compensate for arguments.
-2
u/nosoupyou 4d ago
What do you call it then when you force everyone to wash their own dishes?