definitions

[kanzeon_2040]

"Anarchism is used for a very wide range of actions, tendencies, beliefs, and so on. There’s no settled definition of it. Those who use the term should be indicating clearly, as clearly as you can, what element in this range you’re talking about. I’ve tried to do that. Others do it. You know, anarcho-syndicalism, communitarian anarchism, anarchy in

Comments

[vicar]

I guess I have a problem with the concept: lack of law, or force, results in rule by force - first in small gangs, then warlords, then eventually via one dictator. Always.

Plus, people seem shitty, selfish, and short-viewed. I don't trust individuals to do the right thing - government has reacted to the constant "polluting upstream" as consistently people do not care about the consequences of their actions.

Hell discrimination is from a form of anarchy. I'm thrilled that law prohibiting discrimination has resulted in cultural change...slowly, incomplete, but perhaps more than with actual human freedom.

I just don't see how people can be trusted enough to live without laws and force.

[matrixmann]

People with a basic set of do's and don't's which has a healthy orientation can operate in an environment lacking laws and rules without exaggerating their power. But, the more people a community contains, the greater the probability that one person appears which lives by the attitude "I don't care about unwritten society laws, I do what I want to do". Therefore, if something is determined or designed to be a long-time project, human society needs a few basic laws which everyone can orientate to.
Psychologically, this is even nessecary in the process of a human growing up - because without, you get a youth like it exists now. People which jump on one's skull for nothing - just because no-one's taught them a jump on the skull is lethal and you don't jump on anyone's skull just for an unimportant thing.