I would simply not write the law, since I am an anarchist and I oppose laws.
As a point of agreement within a freely associated anarchist community…it would depend on the needs of the people. Like there might be communities where the members freely agree to not own guns, or communities where members freely agree to all own guns, or something else.
Personally, my preferred approach would be to share gun ownership, maintenance, training, and regular usage collectively within a small community of a couple hundred people at most. The hope would be that the community is small and safe and we all know and trust each other, so we wouldn’t need to carry guns all the time around each other. But then if we needed to defend ourselves against tyrants, we would collectively be armed to the fucking teeth and trained to use these tools. But I would never want to impose this approach.
Hmmm. That feels like the worst interpretation of anarchism, like kind of how non-anarchists have always just assumed anarchism means “no rules I do what I want”. You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right? Hell you can run a court in an unhierarchical way.
But if you’re uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it. You’re basically describing what should happen anyway. I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don’t employ violence
But if you’re uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it.
Nah, that’s not the part I’m objecting to at all. I’m not against rules, written rules, or rules having serious consequences. I’m against, specifically, rules backed by State power. I am using “rules backed byi State power” as a definition for law.
You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right
So under my definition, rules can be used to facilitate a lack of hierarchy…but not law by my definition, because the State inevitably imposes the dominant hierarchies.
If you are operating under a definition of “law” that does not require State power… then I suspect we disagree on definitions and not what we mean to say through them. Sorry if this is too pedantic, but I really do think that understanding each other’s definitions is super important. In an academic work I would simply begin by stating a list of definitions from a minimum of primitive objects…but people would find that weird on a casual web forum 😆.
By “rules” I mean “points of agreement which are required to freely associate with a group”. So then, consequences can be baked into the agreement. For example, you could put in the agreement “We agree that if any member discharges their firearm in a dangerous way, they must surrender their firearm immediately and retake the firearms safety class.”, or something like that depending on community needs.
I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don’t employ violence
Me too. I just don’t believe that it is useful to name such a text a “law”. I believe it is useful to make a distinction between “a rule” and “a law”.
I would simply not write the law, since I am an anarchist and I oppose laws.
As a point of agreement within a freely associated anarchist community…it would depend on the needs of the people. Like there might be communities where the members freely agree to not own guns, or communities where members freely agree to all own guns, or something else.
Personally, my preferred approach would be to share gun ownership, maintenance, training, and regular usage collectively within a small community of a couple hundred people at most. The hope would be that the community is small and safe and we all know and trust each other, so we wouldn’t need to carry guns all the time around each other. But then if we needed to defend ourselves against tyrants, we would collectively be armed to the fucking teeth and trained to use these tools. But I would never want to impose this approach.
Hmmm. That feels like the worst interpretation of anarchism, like kind of how non-anarchists have always just assumed anarchism means “no rules I do what I want”. You know some laws can be for enforcing a lack of hierarchy right? Hell you can run a court in an unhierarchical way.
But if you’re uninterested in putting anything down on paper, I get it. You’re basically describing what should happen anyway. I just personally would want that enshrined in a societally agreed upon text that can be referred to when defending my rights in ways that don’t employ violence
Nah, that’s not the part I’m objecting to at all. I’m not against rules, written rules, or rules having serious consequences. I’m against, specifically, rules backed by State power. I am using “rules backed byi State power” as a definition for law.
So under my definition, rules can be used to facilitate a lack of hierarchy…but not law by my definition, because the State inevitably imposes the dominant hierarchies.
If you are operating under a definition of “law” that does not require State power… then I suspect we disagree on definitions and not what we mean to say through them. Sorry if this is too pedantic, but I really do think that understanding each other’s definitions is super important. In an academic work I would simply begin by stating a list of definitions from a minimum of primitive objects…but people would find that weird on a casual web forum 😆.
By “rules” I mean “points of agreement which are required to freely associate with a group”. So then, consequences can be baked into the agreement. For example, you could put in the agreement “We agree that if any member discharges their firearm in a dangerous way, they must surrender their firearm immediately and retake the firearms safety class.”, or something like that depending on community needs.
Me too. I just don’t believe that it is useful to name such a text a “law”. I believe it is useful to make a distinction between “a rule” and “a law”.