“Everyone is free to do whatever they want” always (d)evolves into the powerful building and gatekeeping exclusive spaces. Anarchy, ironically, always requires strict rules in order to stay anarchic.
That is because anarchy is no rulers, not no rules. It’s less “Everyone is free to do whatever they want” and more “everyone has the same amount of say in how the community is run”
I really wish that anarchists had chosen a more appropriate term. As opposed to one that means the literal opposite of what they intend. Anytime someone announces themselves as an anarchist my eyes roll into the back of my head. It’s like someone inviting you to their atheistic church service.
If you build a time machine you can go 200 years back in time and tell Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. In the 1850s some anarchists did start calling themselves libertarians, but that is also going to be dismissed because Murray Rothbard stole the term for ayn-caps 100 years later.
There will never be an appropriate term because the status quo doesn’t think social anarchism will ever be appropriate.
Anarchy [New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without ; see a- 1 + arkhos, ruler ; see -arch .]
ETA: I forgot a word
. . . a.k.a. democracy.
Direct democracy at the community level, to be precise.
. . . which isn’t anarchy.
And what sources do you have for this claim?
I suspect you mean anarchism. Anarchy is girls less than 10 being raped daily in refugee camps with no recourse.
I’m using Webster’s, but the anarchists I know prefer to write their own definitions and explanations for the theoretical utopian fantasylands of libertarian laissez-faire lawlessness in which they insist we should all live.
Ah, you’re talking about Ayn-caps. They never were anarchists, they just took the name to own the libs.
Thanks for proving my point. You anarchists sure do love to talk about your imaginary utopias in which “everyone has the same amount of say in how the community is run,” but you can never explain how you’d accomplish this organizational task without laws or government and your inane theoretical models, kindergarten idealism, and magical thinking are as tedious and annoying as the anti-vaccination mothers who insist the Earth is flat.
Super simple: Thunderdomes.
It’s not perfect, but if you were stuck in Syria I would advise you to head to them.
Because, as I have already pointed out, IT IS NOT WITHOUT LAWS. I can’t stop you fighting that strawman, but I can call you out for it.
But since you mentioned it (for the benefit of other people, as I know you have no interest in reading it).
It’s the basis for the DFNS self-governance.
So, not anarchy. But you rock on with your own definitions and ideas for your society of Mad Max cosplayers!
But I’m sure that you are right,and I, the ancient Greeks, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Joseph Dejaque, Mikael Backunin,Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman… are all wrong.
Enjoy your bootlicking and your American Conservative Newspeak Dictionary.
I just saw this episode of Parks and Rec yesterday.
Welcome to E720’s end of the world celebration. The entire party’s a VIP area. There’s also a double VIP area. A triple VIP area. And the Centurion Club Elite VIP area. Sponsored by Sobe Lifewater. No one’s allowed in there, not even us.
Um, no, that is slavery, or exploitation, or chaos, which means “without RULES”. Anarchy literally means “without RULERS”.
A refugee camp in which someone engages in the activities you describe would be more accurately described as a dictatorship (or dick-tatorship), or a kleptocracy, literally “ruled by thieves” or, colloquially, “rule by the worst”.
An anarchic refugee camp would, by definition, have their own solutions to such situations, but simply allowing it to continue is not on the list.