this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2025
300 points (96.3% liked)
Greentext
7118 readers
787 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Since writing that last comment I have that funny thought of a diplomacy lottery in my head where it's randomly decided who will join a trained diplomat or experts on state visits to represent the people. "... And this year... Dale will visit the environmental summit with our experts in ..." followed by an AMA where Dale can share their impressions. I'd love it ;D
If no permanent rules are in place then those temporary role enforcers will just enforce whatever rules they want. Like the splicers are doing by harvesting your delicious liver.
They receive authority from themselves or it isn't anarchy.
Anarchy is synonymous with Chaos. Every dictionary and every printed encyclopedia agrees on that. Fontaine and his horde of Splicers are all "looking out for one another."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1
a: absence of government
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order anarchy prevailed in the war zone
b: absence of order : disorder
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
1 : in a literal sense or manner
2 : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
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.
This is both a literary term and an extreme example, idk why you're here arguing it if you agree on that usage.
Social contracts without enforcement are worthless.
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.
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?
You should read about the Frontier days in America after the Louisiana Purchase. Might I suggest the testimony of Dee Harkey?