Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

What kinds of control are OK? What kinds of control are not OK? How will you enforce these measures?

+2 votes
If all kinds of control are not OK, you've just justified what we have now.
asked Oct 26, 2016 by anonymous
I upvote just because your wording is funny and somewhat true...if everything is permitted, well then, nothing wrong with what's going on right now!

The question ultimately is, what kind of life do you want to live? People don't like to be controlled by other people, I certainly don't, my freedom is probably the most important thing to me, despite those who claim that freedom is an illusion. I don't like to have other people judge me and tell me what to do, which is the only thing that sustains my interest in anarchism/anarchy. It's certainly difficult to imagine people never controlling each other living in the artificially constructed world we live in now. The way I look at it, there is no humility when everything we know and understand is constructed by a human being.
i downvoted because of the "is-ness" and the "okay-ness"...in other words, the absoluteness and permanence suggested by the question...as well as the lack of description of "control". yeah, i guess pretty much every word in the question. :)

2 Answers

+3 votes
if i accept your terminology, then control over one's own life is ok. control over other people's lives is not ok, and whatever "enforcement" happens would be people resisting other people's control over them.

random example: one group of people likes to smoke, one group doesn't want to breathe that smoke. one good option is to have different areas for smokers. bad options would be to tell everyone that they have to breathe smoke, or that no one can smoke. appropriate (anarchistic?) enforcement would be by the people who are involved, not a body of people in a hierarchy (writing laws, for example), or people representing other people (politicians of whatever sort, missionaries, etc.).

edited to spell things out a bit more. fwtw.
answered Oct 26, 2016 by dot (57,730 points)
edited Oct 30, 2016 by dot
+1 vote
groups are founded upon a commonality of cultural traits ... common cultural traits lead to structured conduct ... structured conduct creates expectations of conformity ... conformity becomes institutionalized/formalized  thru laws & regulations ... all laws and regs are artificial constructs ... artificial constructs are the means by which groups CONTROL individuals ... individualistic anarchy allows one to exist in parallel to existing control(s) without sublimation to the control or its sponsor ...  only thru conscious disengagement can one avoid the burden imposed by a contrary will ... to obey by choice is philosophically distinct from the obediences of fear, force, or falsehoods ... the latter obediences are extrinsic to the individual while the "choice" to obey is intrinsically pure ...where the control antagonistically intersects the beliefs of an individualistic anarchist there is no need for duty to it and it is here that disengagement dangles its Q ... disengage unto one's freeness and risk the harm of sanction or obey and suffer the the loss of one's beliefs
answered Oct 29, 2016 by jack pot (430 points)
Right on, jack pot !

Individual self-control is OK. I would even say absolutely necessary in any society, and not so unnatural as authoritarians seem to think.

Control of one individual by another via "fear, force or falsehoods" (well-said jack pot) is not ok.

"to obey by choice" some "artificial constructs" in the absence of fear, force or falsehood is self-control. That's ok.

Enforcement? multiple individuals' credible committments to defend the life, liberty and legitimate property of every individual in their community. Of course, that's just a self-governance rule that I think many people would be glad to freely obey in the absence of hierarchy. Enforcement of that particular rule of free society would probably be automatic: if someone won't defend her neighbor's freedom she probably won't enjoy her own for very long.