You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Does Steemit Support Oligarchy More Than Anarchism? Does Real Anarchy Lead to World Peace? How WIll Steemit Evolve?
Anarchy means "no rule", as in no law, as much as it means "no rulers".
For the sake of proper understanding (yours, and anyone you attempt to communicate with) you need to state that at the outset of your argument and then qualify your terms more explicitly (which anarcho-capitalism does.)
Yes the poster should have clarified what he meant by Anarchy. Anarchy is said to mean lack of rulers. "An" meaning "none" and "archy" meaning "rulers". But the common meaning to the common individual is lack of rules. Capitalism has "thou shalt not steal" and money makes the rules. I am convinced you can have rules without governments but you can't have peace without rules.
Anarchy is a logically negative term whether you take one definition or the other. It seems to be on purely abstract concept that falls away as soon as some power is strong enough to impose its own rule on others. You can have anarchy if no power does this, but by what mechanism can we keep some power from doing this? In terms of international affairs for now there is some degree of anarchy but many powers are unbalanced.
greetings. this is why my own definition of anarchy (that can work) is "the agreement to live peacefully without rulers". therefore, this requires a degree of personal, voluntary alignment (which could be said to include some rules), such that enlightened, personal responsibility results in the needed balance. This is the only way to anything approaching a utopia.
I need to make it obvious I DON'T espouse, but completely reject, anarcho-capitalism. I agree with you completely that unbridled free-market capitalism is simply a carte-blanche for those already possessing the money.
The word 'anarchy' literally means "without leader":
I also used to say that anarchy meant without rules too, but after being in an active anarchy group and seeing all manner of discussions on it, I conclude that it actually does most precisely mean 'no rulers'. If I make a rule for myself about how I will live, such as - for example - "I won't go to bed later than 11pm" - I am not violating the principle of anarchy.
Since we could hypothetically operate a society without leaders, yet still have binding laws (I know, ridiculous prima facia, but hypothetically) I could not call that anarchy, but apparently you could. Is this correct?
In other words, my understanding of anarchy would reject any formal social contract.
Thus my objections, because any internal rules are purely internal; we're thus relieved from even agreeing on a common language (to take it to the extreme).
rules can exist by agreement in anarchy, they are though voluntary as opposed to mandatory. they can also end in any moment since they are not enforced by an external ruler. this exposes the reality of 'laws' because 'laws', in truth, are that which CANNOT be broken - so therefore the 'laws' that humans currently try to enforce are only 'rules' that have been artificially upgraded to be 'laws'.
'rule' is a word that relates to 'measure' and as such a 'rule' is just that, a guide.. and not a punishable 'crime' when exceeded. it's good to have a guide when driving on a road, otherwise you can find you are travelling at 150mph into a winding village and die!