The more I see anarchists describe their alternatives to governments, the more they sound like just another government but less organized.
Comment on [deleted]
Prunebutt@feddit.de 7 months agoI’m not arguing against “laws” and neither are anarchists. Of course, rules have to be established for a society.
Currently, in de facto all countries, “laws” are something that is forced upon you by people that are above you in some societal hierarchy, tough.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 months ago
Prunebutt@feddit.de 7 months ago
It’s no the fault of anarchists that you apparently lack the necessary creativity to imagine alternatives to the repressive status quo.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 months ago
I can see just fine. I just think your ideas won’t scale and will turn into a conventional government if you try.
Prunebutt@feddit.de 7 months ago
That’s what people claimed of liberal democracy, too.
qyron@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
Change is an uncomfortable event to our species and, unfortunately, some times has to be forced upon in order to be established.
Although numerous laws are flawed, unfair and even tailor made to protect special interests, the main spirit of the law is to reform outdated norms of behaviour that have been normalized out of habit, yet have no place in a fair society, introduce new precepts into an otherwise arcaic society or regulate activities.
If the understanding of what law exists for remains as you have stated, then there will be no advance possible into an ever better and more fair society, until a point where general consensus can be easily measured, negotiated and achieved.
I personally detest the concept of “leader”. In a democratic society, such figure must not exist and is paradoxical. A democracy does not elect leaders but representatives, individuals and groups that reunite enough support to enact specific tasks and fill discrete and finite roles. A leader moves in accordance to a personal agenda and moves the group to their will.