blowbelow

blowbelow OP wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in My boring introduction by blowbelow

The consequence of violating another's liberty can be reparations, mediation, rehabilitation, ostracization, etc. In some situations, this won’t require any violence. Much of society could ostracize an individual for their criminal acts by refusing to associate and conduct business with them. In other situations laws may need to be enforced by an agency capable of enacting violence (for example counter-terror units) but being capable of enacting violence doesn’t require a monopoly on violence per say.

2

blowbelow OP wrote

Reply to comment by Fool in My boring introduction by blowbelow

Take the 10 commandments - perfectly reasonable as recommendations to not live in mental anguish - but as soon as they're decreed by the divine, they become devoid of the original intent.

To be completely honest, I don't get the analogy. However even when I identified as an Anarchist I always believed in the concept of having certain conditions/expectations. Primarily the expectation to not infringe on another’s liberty and a consequence to occur if that were to happen. The consequence can be reparations, mediation, rehabilitation, ostracization, etc.

1

blowbelow OP wrote

Reply to comment by Fool in My boring introduction by blowbelow

I don't think that's a particularly "good" system if your faith requires laws.

If I may ask a question without getting downvoted into oblivion, what is wrong with law?

1

blowbelow OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in My boring introduction by blowbelow

I think if an ideology makes allowances for government (even going as far as preventing people from withdrawing while enforcing majority rule enacted via assemblies), it's always going to result in government. It's a blueprint for forming a government; for ruling a society and forcing the government's will on the individual.

As I was saying earlier, it would be perfectly possible to create assembly's which are voluntary. In fact, that's what I (and many other Communalists) advocate for. Of course this isn't always the case, but I'm suggesting that this is totally possible and in most cases preferable.

They're really not anarchism though

I think this comes down to definitions. My understanding of Anarchism is (put simply) “without rulers” or in other words the abolition of unjust hierarchies, and unjust hierarchies are not necessary for forming a polity- something which I believe to be important for any large scale Anarchist/Libertarian projects.

1

blowbelow OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in My boring introduction by blowbelow

I'm curious which one?

For anonymity, I won't be specifying the community since it is a very small community. Apologies if that doesn't satisfy your curiosity, I just want to remain anonymous on this account.

Even more curious about this, what's the appeal?

Coming from an Anarchist background, I just found that every modern example of Anarchism I've come across always ended up forming some sort of polity. I just decided that I should be more specific with my label and instead of identifying as an Anarchist, I could identify as something that provides a better idea of what polity might be structured. I just find it to be more well-organized and practical. This isn't to say that it cannot be done in an Anarchist fashion. I may be alone in saying this but I believe it's perfectly possible to organize a polity without a state. Unfortunately that isn't what we've seen in the 1 example of Democratic Confederalism we have, but I believe it is possible, even likely, that it could be seen in other examples of Democratic Confederalism in the future.

5

blowbelow OP wrote

Reply to comment by subrosa in My boring introduction by blowbelow

I'll stick to anarchism being much more coherent when it comes to liberty, but I'm fine with democrats, confederalists and bookchinites identifying as anything other than anarchists.

I find there's sort of a divide among Communalists between those who consider themselves Anarchists and those who just consider themselves Libertarians. I personally feel indiferrent towards being called either an Anarchist or a Libertarian. I just call myself a DemCon because I feel it is the most accurate label I could apply to myself at the moment, but I find myself working with many Anarchists- typically Social Anarchists.

3