• 5wim
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 天前

    Anarchism means no rulers, not no rules.

    • naeap@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 小时前

      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
      ·
      2 天前

      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
        4
        ·
        1 天前

        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.