What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Well I’ll bite. If I could press you to explain.
Now, Anarchic societies will preserve some laws and organizations. But do away with authority. I personally have a hard time rectifying the two. By whose authority are these laws made and subsequently enforced? Popular opinion – direct democracy, as previously mentioned? Is that not giving laurels, authority, to populism to simple redundancy of thought?
Could you present a hypothetical example of the birth, maintenance, and implementation of a law within an Anarcho society?
Is this a question of desire and methodology? Or an absolute state?
yes, direct democracy of some sort could work. you could have syndicalism, which is basically worker’s autonomy through democratic or consentualist labour unions, or other similar constructs for instance involving consumer unions. there’s inclusive democracy, there’s a social credit system which basically is a form of economic democracy…
ok i don’t know much about Anarchism as such, being more interested in the related concept of economic democracy. but anyway, i would see it as communes of people grouped by Dunbar’s number that regionally collaborate with other such communes through perhaps representatives. i would suggest laws would mostly either be universal (or global if you will) and communal, where universal laws deal with protection of children, and to guarantie that each person is free to leave any commune for another, and the right to secession and freedom of information, a few things like that, and that outside of a few such universal regulations these communes are completely free to make up their own laws (including authoritarian laws if they please…so long as they are free to leave their submission would be voluntary, so…)
the universal laws would be drafted by something like the World Social Forum or so, i’d say by representatives.
anyway, there are a lot of other theories. there’s demarchy, which usually means randomly selected periodic leaders. there’s anarcho-communism with public ownership of the means to production.
the laws can just be written by democratic means, that’s not really the issue, just so long as these laws do not impliment coercive authority to a class of people. anarchism has more to do with leaders in the way of business corporations and institutions than it does legislation. self-management on an intersocial scale.
you could also think of anarcho-voluntaryism. i made it up, and Voluntaryism is a concept originating from the right. but what imagine is the only laws you are protected by are the laws you submit to, and if you don’t submit to those laws you are free not to, but breaching another’s protection that _is_ protected by such a law is done at your own risk.
this basically means that you will still authoritarianistically coerced to not punch a random person in the face, if that person has submitted to that law. but, if you please, you could not submit to it, leaving you free to punch another that hasn’t submitted to it in the face, at the risk of being punched in the face without being able to call the cops in return.
ok this idea needs a little fine-tuning, but anyway, it’s just some ideas.