I call myself an Anarchist, but I don’t think there are many reasonable Anarchists who want a society without any government. It’s necessary for the function of protecting people. It shouldn’t be involved in telling people how to live their lives where it doesn’t effect others though, such as laws against drug use or any other lifestyle choices. It should step in to protect people from exploitation and dangers that they don’t choose freely.
To answer your question, it couldn’t. Essentially no one is asking for that though, so it’s not really a useful question.
Here’s a good page that goes into more detail, but no. Anarchism is not a total lack of government. It’s the removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation (inside and out of the government).
As an anarchist, I answer this just about the same way I answer most questions. Through consensus of those involved, the form that takes is going to be different for each region, community, et cetera. Those that make up society need to have some way of making collective decisions, but it doesn’t need to be a state to achieve that. States are new, governing is not. I favor consensus democracy, but it’s by no means the only method. But questions like this are a double edged sword, they’re vital to explaining left libertarianism, but they’re also proof of how far we have to go before people understand even the basics of it. Stateless does not mean ungoverned, just as anarchism does not mean chaos. It’s simple a governing by the people. If we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves how in the hell do we think this is a tenable system, in which we choose individuals to govern us?
I call myself an Anarchist, but I don’t think there are many reasonable Anarchists who want a society without any government. It’s necessary for the function of protecting people. It shouldn’t be involved in telling people how to live their lives where it doesn’t effect others though, such as laws against drug use or any other lifestyle choices. It should step in to protect people from exploitation and dangers that they don’t choose freely.
To answer your question, it couldn’t. Essentially no one is asking for that though, so it’s not really a useful question.
Isn’t that technically not anarchism? It sounds more like direct democracy with limited government.
Here’s a good page that goes into more detail, but no. Anarchism is not a total lack of government. It’s the removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation (inside and out of the government).
As an anarchist, I answer this just about the same way I answer most questions. Through consensus of those involved, the form that takes is going to be different for each region, community, et cetera. Those that make up society need to have some way of making collective decisions, but it doesn’t need to be a state to achieve that. States are new, governing is not. I favor consensus democracy, but it’s by no means the only method. But questions like this are a double edged sword, they’re vital to explaining left libertarianism, but they’re also proof of how far we have to go before people understand even the basics of it. Stateless does not mean ungoverned, just as anarchism does not mean chaos. It’s simple a governing by the people. If we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves how in the hell do we think this is a tenable system, in which we choose individuals to govern us?
I honestly don’t understand how this works and I want to.
If everyone decides murder is wrong, then some people will have to be the force to investigate and punish those crimes.
Who is accountable for overseeing those using force to ensure they don’t use it for personal gain?