Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+2 votes
If all kinds of control are not OK, you've just justified what we have now.
i downvoted because of the "is-ness" and the "okay-ness" other words, the absoluteness and permanence suggested by the 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.
by (53.1k points)
edited by
+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
by (370 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.