• ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      No, what you describe is chaos. Anarchy means there are no rulers. People rule themselves and are also looking out for each other thus enforcing the minimum set of rules that are necessary to have a stable society. Rules can come from a consensus, yes.

      A current example is the anarchist punk camp on Sylt where it was decided that dogs need to be on a leash when your are in the camp. If someone sees someone with a dog without a leash, they tell them of the decision and why it was made and that’s it.

            • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah, those are definitions when used as a literary term, or an extreme example. You’re not wrong that anarchy can refer to no rules at all, but social contracts and agreements can exist and it still be anarchy just fine.

                • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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”.