Comment on Lawless society

• explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Decentralized authority

  source

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Rules are enforced by the collective not by a small minority essentially. Things like direct democracy doesn’t contradict with their philosophy. Essentially middle management and above in all aspects of financial and political life would be abolished.

    source

    • june@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Direct democracy doesn’t only not contradict with anarchism, it is a core tenant of anarchism. After all, how do we get rid of unjustified hierarchy without creating a hierarchy free form or rulership?

      source

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        There is a whole debate within anarchism whether to use the term democracy or not. People on both sides of this semantical debate will have identical utopias but call them differently. Zoe Baker has a video essay about that on YouTube.

        I like the term Direct Democracy since it shows my disagreement with parliamentary democracy while still using a term that’s regarded as positive. “Our democracy isn’t direct enough” will resonate with more people than “Democracy bad, anarchy good”.

        source
      • contrapunctus@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        core * tenet

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Forester@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    What Monopoly on violence

    source
• Dozzi92@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Publicly shun people. You’re a rule breaker? You’ve been shunned by society and people who associate with you will be known associates of the shunned.

  source

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    And further to that we have voluntary prison. Essentially, if you’re guilty of something and want to have the benefits of this society, you need to agree to a loss of some privileges - in whatever form is necessary. If you wont, well good luck surviving when nobody will trade with you or let you live near them.

    If you won’t agree to that, you can leave, but the full details of your trial and conviction are public and your decision to leave will be broadcast, so our neighbours know to look out for you.

    That means trials will need to be fair, and seen to be fair, or else it will be easy to ask for asylum. Prisoners need to be fairly treated, or they will try their luck in a nearby place.

    But if someone chooses to leave and is just trying to run from the consequences of their actions, well they’ll have a hard time being accepted anywhere else.

    source

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      So what do you do to deal with the situation we see in modern states with an actual centralised “monopoly” on violence: Organised criminal environments that live off exploiting the rest of society?

      We’re talking about people that don’t care if you shun them, because they have their own environment, with their own hierarchy and set of rules, and they’re willing to use violence to exploit the rest of society to make a living.

      source

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I’m not really sure what question you’re asking. What situation specifically are you talking about? Are we dealing with capitalism from the inside or from the outside? Are you asking about a theory of change, or about how an anarchist region deals with its state neighbours?

        These all have answers, similar but different, but I don’t really want to spend the effort answering every permutation of the question I could imagine without knowing what you mean.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Short answer: The community.

  In small contexts, a mutual understanding is sufficient. There are “Radical Therapy” groups with no central therapist who decides who talks how much but instead have rules like fixed times for each person. I don’t think people will break these rules but exclusion is always an option with very intransigent people.

  In bigger contexts like the Commons, people deliberate on their own rules. Minor transgressions will have minor consequences and the worst is – again – exclusion. People are more willing to stick to the rules and watch others if they were part of the process that created the rules. If you want to dive deeper, I remember a podcast episode by SRSLY WRONG and a YouTube video by Andrewism about The Commons or The Tragedy of the Common.

  source
• jdeath@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  free (dis) association

  source
• StaticFalconar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  More cancel culture over putting all the power to the military and police.

  source
• GladiusB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Peer pressure, self awareness, probably a few others I can’t think of.

  source