Is the following social arrangement anarchy?

Question

There is a community of farmers (and only farmers),each member of this  community have freely agreed to comply with the following in return for the other members following the free agreement and respecting their rights:all farmers have 260 acres of land(this is their private land so they look after it but every member of the community has the same amount),all farmers must work 8 hrs a day(Monday  to Saturday),all food belongs to everyone,all farmers must have Remington shotguns,all farmers must meet in the farmers assembly on Sundays to discuss and study business(agribusiness)ballistics,forensic science generally,mechanics,tool making,the implications of the contract etc and to form juries to decide (after debate and by majority vote) guilt and innocence in breaches of the agreement and to direct labour,all farmers must enforce this agreement and keep order,all farmers are equal,all farmers help build the labour reducing machines,no farmer may breach the peace,no farmer may engage In wanton violence,all farmers must work at the direction of the jury,no one may deprive someone of enough food to live and  no farmer may build buildings  except by consent of a jury and in the way the jury instructed them.

Comments

If this is a joke I like it, but I'm not sure if it is or not.....

---

i don't know, but it sounds terrible to me.

---

I think this may be an example of poe's law or not. 

---

if this is one small scene, and everyone involved is capable of leaving whenever they want (ie there are places for them to go)... in other words, if this is a role-playing game,

then it could be part of an anarchist mix. but it wouldn't be the anarchist part.

---

why would someone want to live with such an arrangement?

---

ba@: some people like a lot of structure and clarity?

---

dot, yes, i like structure and clarity myself,,,,,

but working 260 acres for 8 hours a day, 6 days a week only for food, plus endless business meetings on the 7th day? why? (not that i expect you to answer it....but i'd like to know the basis for the question because it makes no sense to me...although i doubt that the anonymous poster will clarify...but if they like clarity....).

Answer 1

not even remotely, imo.

for starters, there are a huge number of "must"s in your social arrangement.  no self-respecting anarchist i know would ever submit to such an arrangement. in fact, what you describe sounds very much like existing society - with a few material "equalizations".

no, i would say any social arrangement that i would consider anarchistic would have be much, much further outside the box of modern, civilized thought. yours is mired in economic and legalistic constraints.

also, for this anarchist, any agreement is inherently transient, contextual, and can be bailed on by any party at any time. the mere scope of your requirements leans towards a constitution of sorts. ie: laws.

edit: much about your scenario sounds more communistic than anarchistic.