DustRG's avatar
DustRG 1 week ago
What is this definition based on? Per this definition, anarchy has nothing to do with governments, as governments only "steward" populations towards whatever means, they do not "own" their populations. There is nothing preventing someone from acting on their own means to flee such jurisdictions, for better or worse. You are free to ignore the rules set by the steward governments, but you also accept the consequences of doing such, just as a kid is free to ignore their parents, and accepts the consequences of doing such. So essentially, per this definition, yeah everyone lives in anarchy, so what? We also technically live in communism. Because I control my means of production, I am a worker and I can control what I want to produce. Myself and my community are not able to produce enough to realistically compete with the living conditions of the societal structure we live in, nor could we create a defense at scale to protect our community from said society if we did. Sure we could share some things among a community, as long as we still participated in the state we live in. Also, im not pro communism, I just think people have a misconception of what it looks like due to claims of communism by states abusing their workers. We've never seen real communism, as it is effectively impossible at large scare. So I guess governments could claim to be pro anarchy/(individual freedom) or pro communism, but both are oxymoron as they both exist seperate from the state. So yeah, same thing.
↑ Parent

Replies (1)

Anarchy Edu's avatar
Anarchy Edu 1 week ago
Thank you for the push back! First, I’d like to clarify, the definition of anarchy is no rulers (just as others mentioned earlier). It is based upon the understanding of self-ownership. As for the stewardship/ guardian role: If a self-owning human is currently unable to articulate their will, in an informed manner, no one has the right to make life-altering changes to that person (essentially assuming that persons will.) At best, someone may work only toward the natural preservation of another until they do have the ability to fully express their will. Parents gain ownership of the steward/guardian role by homesteading it. They are the first to care for the child …especially the mother. Governments cannot be stewards for two reasons from this basis. First, no one can claim to be “stewards” of already mature humans who are indeed capable of fully expressing their will. Second, just as one cannot gain ownership of an object by mere decree or calling “dibs,” no person nor group called government, can declare itself rightful stewards. Therefore, the family guardians role should not infringe on anyone’s right of self-ownership; there are no rulers. Government cannot be a steward by definition and has no right to be a ruler over another, just as no one does.
↑