I wouldn’t call you an authoritarian. I would say you fall closer to the cynical/pessimistic anarchist. At least anarchist adjacent. I am aware anarchists have and do make decisions through majority, but I argue it is different. This system relies almost solely on majority rule, anarchism uses simple majority as a tool. Worse so because this system uses majority rule to determine who gets to have power, while anarchism uses majority rule to make individual decisions. And I definitely agree some anarchists can sometimes be utopian.
Ido think it is naive to think that there would be no need for some form of enforcement of certain rules, but I do believe that that is last resort and would not make up the norm. And that enforcement would be in situations like the one you outline, where one community infringes on the freedom and safety of another. No anarchist believes in the freedom to harm others. So a community harming another through polluted water would be breaking that rule, social contract, whatever. But it would be handled through negotiations, conflict resolution, professionals in deescalation, etc and only force as a last resort or serious emergency.
I also recognize most if not all anarchist experiments end up looking or functioning as libertarian socialist societies. Considering anarchists would and still do also call themselves libertarian socialists, I do not think most anarchists are opposed to that. There are the more extreme anatchists that would disagree, and I can empathize with them even if I don’t entirely agree with them.
I also at no point said that specialists should be the ones making certain decisions. I don’t think most anarchists would argue against that. Part of the issue I feel we have in society rn is that people who have no business being involved in a certain field are also the ones who have power over that field. Such as politicians and the education system, or politicians and pretty much anything. Or another example being literally anyone about someone else’s body and identity.
Ido think it is naive to think that there would be no need for some form of enforcement of certain rules, but I do believe that that is last resort and would not make up the norm.
The thing is, you can just as easily argue that even now, force is a last resort and doesn’t make up the norm. I think any of us calling ourselves leftists would agree that it’s far more common than it should be, but the vast majority of conflicts in modern society are resolved without ever resorting to the state’s explicit monopoly on force, or resorting to violating that monopoly.
I also recognize most if not all anarchist experiments end up looking or functioning as libertarian socialist societies. Considering anarchists would and still do also call themselves libertarian socialists, I do not think most anarchists are opposed to that. There are the more extreme anatchists that would disagree, and I can empathize with them even if I don’t entirely agree with them.
I generally regard the two as synonymous except when dealing with specific assertions that are utopian, such as the idea that an anarchist society does not have people making decisions for other individuals. As here.
I also at no point said that specialists should be the ones making certain decisions. I don’t think most anarchists would argue against that.
But at that point people are quite explicitly making decisions for the lives of others.
Sorry this is long and fairly unorganized.
No worries, I didn’t find it either. Quality discussion is quality discussion. If I got bored with it, I’d bounce, don’t worry :p
I wouldn’t call you an authoritarian. I would say you fall closer to the cynical/pessimistic anarchist. At least anarchist adjacent. I am aware anarchists have and do make decisions through majority, but I argue it is different. This system relies almost solely on majority rule, anarchism uses simple majority as a tool. Worse so because this system uses majority rule to determine who gets to have power, while anarchism uses majority rule to make individual decisions. And I definitely agree some anarchists can sometimes be utopian.
Ido think it is naive to think that there would be no need for some form of enforcement of certain rules, but I do believe that that is last resort and would not make up the norm. And that enforcement would be in situations like the one you outline, where one community infringes on the freedom and safety of another. No anarchist believes in the freedom to harm others. So a community harming another through polluted water would be breaking that rule, social contract, whatever. But it would be handled through negotiations, conflict resolution, professionals in deescalation, etc and only force as a last resort or serious emergency.
I also recognize most if not all anarchist experiments end up looking or functioning as libertarian socialist societies. Considering anarchists would and still do also call themselves libertarian socialists, I do not think most anarchists are opposed to that. There are the more extreme anatchists that would disagree, and I can empathize with them even if I don’t entirely agree with them.
I also at no point said that specialists should be the ones making certain decisions. I don’t think most anarchists would argue against that. Part of the issue I feel we have in society rn is that people who have no business being involved in a certain field are also the ones who have power over that field. Such as politicians and the education system, or politicians and pretty much anything. Or another example being literally anyone about someone else’s body and identity.
Sorry this is long and fairly unorganized.
The thing is, you can just as easily argue that even now, force is a last resort and doesn’t make up the norm. I think any of us calling ourselves leftists would agree that it’s far more common than it should be, but the vast majority of conflicts in modern society are resolved without ever resorting to the state’s explicit monopoly on force, or resorting to violating that monopoly.
I generally regard the two as synonymous except when dealing with specific assertions that are utopian, such as the idea that an anarchist society does not have people making decisions for other individuals. As here.
But at that point people are quite explicitly making decisions for the lives of others.
No worries, I didn’t find it either. Quality discussion is quality discussion. If I got bored with it, I’d bounce, don’t worry :p