deadroosters
Koalalion
Not very anarchist friendly, well yeah. honestly though i can see why most peoples conceptions of anarchism is negative, considering what some people who want to label them selves as anarchists are like.
non the less the muslim brotherhood is hardly anarchist, i doubt it ever was except maybe labeled as such but the label get's thrown around.
it's total anarchy *mob following giant personalities every word having one supreme unelected representative who everyone knows is a total bafoon*
it's also worth adding that a-lot of people would probably like anarchism, except they don't think it's a realistic option such as me and definitely other people.
What can a government do that a powerful free people cannot?
I think your making 2 logical errors,
1– anarchist opposition isn't to governance, but rather to unjustified forms of authority or hierarchy, calling for the abolition of most forms and all arbitrary forms of either.
2– if all people we're to cast a vote on all matters before they came to law that itself would constitute a form of government and hence be a system of government, so inasfar as things like law and liberty can exist side by side, their is a clear possibility of government and freedom coexisting.
as far as I can tell the statement may presume several falsehoods,
1. that governments need to be like modern governments, to quote john green ‘the inability to imagine the other’. of course government could be organized in ways unlike modern governments, even the seperation of powers was very radical at one point.
2. that government and freedom must be contradictory, for example their are degrees of freedom, and laws for example don't have to be controlling, a loss of one form of liberty can be replaced with another the freedom to sell yourself into slavery can be replaced by a guarantee of never being anything like that of a slave.
