• Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that no one can be held responsible for your actions but yourself. Not government, not god, not a gun to your head, just you accepting responsibility. Anarchism without personal responsibility is just fascism at the individual scale.

    • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I read it as a useful point of recognition accessible to all, something more like a seed than a container (container being “anarchism is…”).

      • rnercle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        i assume that the person who posted this is young and hence they shouldn’t “give a fuck”.

        Godspeed to them… hope they can shake down everything around them :)

  • Tinidril@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    …yet is entirely incapable of telling you not to impinge on everyone else’s control over their own lives.

    The whole point of laws is (or should be) to clearly delineate when your freedom to swing your arm impinges on someone else’s right not to get punched.

    • simone@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Anarchy isn’t about doing whatever you want, hurting anyone along the way. That’s libertarianism.

      • 5wim
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

        • naeap@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          No, it means, no rulers.

          Anomie means no rules

          Edit: at least that’s the German word for a society without rules. Anarchy can perfectly integrate social rules, but without rulers. Made by the people in the society they live in.

          Edit 2: auto correct fucked my over quite some times here

        • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ok, and who gets to decide those rules?

          And don’t start with “everyone decides them”, I mean practically. Who gets to have the idea of a rule, bring it forth to the group, organize the whole shtick of deciding on it, implement it, inform everyone else how the new rule works, enforce it, and everything else that needs to happen for a rule to exist?

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Do some reading. There are a lot of solutions. The most obvious, as you brought it up just to dismiss it, is direct democracy. Everyone votes. There are other options too, like a rotating panel of representatives, so no one has lasting g authority and everyone shares in it.

            There are people smarter than both of us who think it’s a good idea and have thought of potential solutions. Before you just dismiss things out of hand, you should actually look into what solutions have been thought of before. I promise you your thought isn’t unique, and people have considered how it would work. Maybe you can learn from it, even if you don’t agree with it.

    • Jack@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m not sure you know what anarchy means. You might be thinking of direct democracy. Even that has issues with tyranny of the majority and market forces being leveraged to curtail freedom outside of government control. I’m a social libertarian myself, because government intervention is required to curtail abuse of market forces.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Direct democracy is one of the system proposed for Anarchist governance. Direct democracy is just a system. It can be part of many political ideas. Anarchy just means there isn’t hierarchy. Direct democracy facilitates this, correct? There are no rulers, and everyone is equal in voting.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Direct democracy makes the majority into an authority over the minority. You are also going to have to enforce those laws. That means cops and, more importantly, judges. That is unless you plan to try every single criminal in a national referendum. Or you could put them in front of unsupervised juries, in which case you might as well codify it as legalized lynching.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 hours ago

              I love people who are so confident that they’re the first people to think of something. You assume you must be correct just because you feel strongly about it. This has all been considered. Here’s the Anarchist wiki, for your perusal. You might learn something there if you’re actually open to learning.

              • Tinidril@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                I love it that you assume I should know or care that there is an anarchist wiki. No, I certainly don’t think I was the first to think of anything, and no, you have given me no reason to want to “learn something”. I studied philosophy of government in college and have read the anarchy page on Wikipedia, have you done either?

                Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I’ll bother.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  The fact you first think reading a single wiki page is sufficient, and also mention the wrong page, makes this hilarious. Little a anarchy is not the same as big A Anarchism. Anarchism is the political thought. Yes, I’ve read it.

                  Give me one reason why I should bother with your (presumably) anarchist fanfic smartass and maybe I’ll bother.

                  Because you have a curious mind and want to be informed. You’d rather know the solutions others have come up with for your hypothetical problems than to think no one has considered it. You’d rather find out you were uninformed and learned something new instead of thinking refusing to learn makes you feel right.

      • rnercle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I do not think laws are incompatible with anarchic society, as long as these laws are democratically created and there is free association with the society as a whole.

        how do you “democratically” create laws? Will people vote to create those laws and what’s going to happen to people who disagree with those “democratically created laws”?

        • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Their vision of anarchy is just democracy that agrees with them because they don’t want to participate in the democracy they already have.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Direct democracy is not the same as representative democracy. We have a ruling class that we elect. A direct democracy doesn’t. There are other options to solve the issue too.

        • insurrection@mstdn.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          even assuming that a group of free people without classes or coercion would choose to make a law, it can’t possibly apply to people who didn’t consent to it.

          so it’s no law at all. and such a law dies when one of the last two agreed people die.

          it simply makes no sense for a system of consent and consensus to implement laws.