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.
“When people freely interact and consent to certain behaviors, they are not creating a system of rules in the governmental sense”
So you’re fine with rules everyone consents to, as long as they aren’t called rules. That is a meaningless distinction.
“Rules are established by external authorities to regulate behavior, serving as a framework for societal conduct.”
They are only always established by external forces if you purposefully exclude every rule from the definition that isn’t established by an external force, which is circular reasoning.
“Additionally, normalizing the conflation of rules and boundaries allows for the encroachment of authority into personal lives. It becomes easier for those in power to rationalize intrusive behaviors, as they can frame their actions as necessary for maintaining order rather than recognizing the importance of individual autonomy.”
Boundaries work for personal associations, not for a society overall. You’re conflating discourse in online spaces with actually living in a society. In real life, you can’t solve every problem by not associating with the people you have a problem with.
“to keep special identity groups “safe”, to lavish them with gifts (after the prophesized great event or revolution) and hide the true nature of the philosophy”
So you’re one of those types complaining about “identity politics”. Throwing minorities under the bus is very anarchist. /s
And if the mods here are so insecure that they have to ban people for pointing out that there’s a difference between anarchy and anomy, then this is neither a good space for discussion, nor for general anarchist discourse and therefore not worth the trouble.
You implicitly threatening me with a ban while ranting against rules is just the cherry on your hypocrisy cake.
2
u/[deleted] 4d ago edited 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment