Well, because things in practice are often different than the extreme end of the definition, and I’m arguing because I enjoy it and it exposes me to other perspectives. Like how you see no benefit to anarchy tells me about your lived expieriences and/or how you would plan to act in an anarchal society.
Also, social contracts are enforced in anarchy, just not by an entity emposed by a governing body. I’d say social contracts are more worthwhile when they flourish without the need for enforcement. E.g. people watching what they say in public around children. You won’t get arrested for swearing until it’s “disturbing the peace”.
You should read about the Frontier days in America after the Louisiana Purchase. Might I suggest the testimony of Dee Harkey?
Harkey continued, “Each person pretty much enforced the laws as he understood them. If the strong imposed his gun on the weak, or became ruthless in his dealings with his fellow man, there was always the posse.”
Were the majority of the posses which lynched accused men justified in their actions?
“Regardless of how men are tried, except by God alone, there are possibilities of mistakes. Those people who had to dish out punishment themselves instead of having someone dish it out for them, as is done today after sentence is pronounced, were usually pretty sure of the guilt before the punishment. Naturally, the formed posses were never considered a means to an end. They were just about as unpopular with the law as the lawless.”
The literal day they became public they declared war. They also had a literal constitution and literal laws posted on the signs entering their territory, and you can be damn sure they had enforcers.
If you mean the zapatistas… duhhh? They were an anarchist movement within a country, they were attacked by the country they were founded in, and their enforcers were held in rotation and decided on by a fully public discussion that anyone in the community could attend, this is fully anarchist.
Well, because things in practice are often different than the extreme end of the definition, and I’m arguing because I enjoy it and it exposes me to other perspectives. Like how you see no benefit to anarchy tells me about your lived expieriences and/or how you would plan to act in an anarchal society.
Also, social contracts are enforced in anarchy, just not by an entity emposed by a governing body. I’d say social contracts are more worthwhile when they flourish without the need for enforcement. E.g. people watching what they say in public around children. You won’t get arrested for swearing until it’s “disturbing the peace”.
This has yet to be demonstrated.
You should read about the Frontier days in America after the Louisiana Purchase. Might I suggest the testimony of Dee Harkey?
deleted by creator
See: the zapatistas and revolutionary catalonia for examples of anarchist societies.
The literal day they became public they declared war. They also had a literal constitution and literal laws posted on the signs entering their territory, and you can be damn sure they had enforcers.
If you mean the zapatistas… duhhh? They were an anarchist movement within a country, they were attacked by the country they were founded in, and their enforcers were held in rotation and decided on by a fully public discussion that anyone in the community could attend, this is fully anarchist.
Lmao Zapatistas are still around and they were NOT on defence.
They are absolutely on defence and i’m aware they are around, but the mexican government is actively trying to destroy them
you really didn’t realize that the fact that they’re still around undermines, not strengthens your argument huh?