Exactly. Anarchy is pervasive in most of the animal kingdom, anyone who seriously takes a look wonāt like what they see.
Discussion
While I idealize an enlightened, stateless society, I recognize that humanity is not ready for that yet. We have to get there by degrees, not through an upheaval.
Anarchism is not a utopia. There may well be violence and risks, but letting people interact voluntarily with each other is the only just approach. Letting a group in society have a monopoly on violence and coercion (the state) is not just even if itās āsafeā.
Unlike animals, humans have reason and are able to recognize (over time) that collaborating peacefully satisfies everyoneās needs to a greater extent than being a savage like animals.
Anarchy is not a place, itās a relationship!
I agree with what you are describing here, but it isnāt anarchy. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding about what anarchy is, it is a mechanism, an extreme means to an end. It is not a form, organization or governance consistently observed in any species on earth. Even microbes have the sense to not pursue anarchy.
What is anarchism in your book? The basic dictionary definition and the one used by advocates like michael malice is basically what I described, i.e voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
As I understand it there are 2 ways of meeting ends as described by Rothbard on āAnatomy of the Stateā. Economic means which is voluntary and Political means which involves coercion and force. Anarchism would seek ends through economic means, or at the very least it does not support political means of achieving ends. How is achieving ends through economic means extreme?
I get your point of such a behavior not seem in the animal kingdom. Unlike animals, humans have faculties of reason.
Anarchy, or anarkhia from the Greek literally translates to without rule. Personally I can tolerate evolutionary anarchism as a transitional mechanism that may be necessary in the current era, but tell me, what does lawless society mean practically? The majority denies the minority, the strong victimize the weak, and those who form uneasy alliances with other ruthless warlords, capitalize on the association until the spoils justify betrayal? All I can say is that if that is the world you are advocating for, you probably donāt want to be in my resource radius. Itās better if we all work together and suffer less as a collective.
You missed a letter. Arkhos meaning ruleR would make the translation āwithout a rulerā, which is a very different proposition. Not to let a word derail the main point I was getting at, voluntarism is better than coercion. The state has a monopoly on coercion and violence, one can be for that, but there is no way to morally justify it. Democracy literally denies the minority. Iām advocating for voluntary interactions as opposed to those needing coercion or the threat of violence.
What youāre advocating makes sense to 5% of the population. Do you think the mobs acknowledge that distinction, much less attend to an absent letter? Populace with pitchforks enact change. Get real man, if society unleashes the hounds, we will be fortunate to survive. Family, loved ones? Not a chance. Embrace the horror of what you are advocating, and realize that if you actually promote this, you are the monster we all fear for good reason, and know that we, the rational minority will sacrifice to put you down.
The horror of choosing not to coerce or threaten others with violence? What the mob does or does not acknowledge is irrelevant to what an ideology is proposing. Mobs also donāt care about peace and order yet thatās what most people want. Youāre making an assumption of what would happen if the state didnāt have a monopoly on violence. You are also disregarding that protection/security is a good like any other which can be sourced in the market as many businesses like banks, department stores, private schools, etc. do today. What does not have to be assumed is the horror and body counts of communist and socialist countries where the state has an even greater monopoly of coercion and violence than in western democracies. I grant that many people today are more than okay to have a government coerce and commit violence towards groups they donāt like. Voluntarism is not for everyone I suppose.
What the mob accepts and understands is of dire importance, and ideology is powerful. Iām not here to support statism, current government, or corporatism. In nearly every case, follow the (money/resources) and you will find the incentive and impetus. Ideologies only serve as seminal vessels of leadership and initiation, the propulsion is usually hidden.