Anarchism can be a bit tricky to philosophize sometimes and I'm unsure every self-described anarchist necessarily gets it right all the time. I guess it's like anything, like the religious not quite getting their own religion right.
For example, if one wants to be governed and government is optional, then it seems to fall under anarchy fine. Or if a group wants to do some kind of task that requires a leader, then that also falls under anarchy fine if everyone agrees with it and enters into it wilfully.
As long as whatever people decide, it is generally done of their free will.
Another example that I've read before is getting into a jet plane: If one does that, they do it with the understanding that any funny stuff and the pilot or flight attendants have the coercive power to knock you back, so to speak, into your seat.
And then there's the example of the parent yanking back a child who has just wandered into dangerous traffic before the light turns green or maybe to fetch a ball that has bounced into the street. IOW, there's ethical coercion and unethical coercion. Sometimes the two can be tricky to differentiate. Obviously the child is too young to give consent or all the time for everything, but it can be about saving the child's life and the parent having some levels of ethical coercion/control over the child.
Zazzy, a long overdue thanks to you, for helping me see anarchy and anarchists in a completely different light - a different context.
Yes, Jesus, an anarchist for sure - a revolutionary, a rebel (with a cause). Certainly, not the meek and almost effeminate images we see.
Previously I envisioned, head-banging heavy metal music adherents - violent and chaotic.
My reformed definition - which you may or may not agree with - is simply, self-governing, a man needs no other governing.
You're quite welcome, Ron...
Anarchism can be a bit tricky to philosophize sometimes and I'm unsure every self-described anarchist necessarily gets it right all the time. I guess it's like anything, like the religious not quite getting their own religion right.
For example, if one wants to be governed and government is optional, then it seems to fall under anarchy fine. Or if a group wants to do some kind of task that requires a leader, then that also falls under anarchy fine if everyone agrees with it and enters into it wilfully.
As long as whatever people decide, it is generally done of their free will.
Another example that I've read before is getting into a jet plane: If one does that, they do it with the understanding that any funny stuff and the pilot or flight attendants have the coercive power to knock you back, so to speak, into your seat.
And then there's the example of the parent yanking back a child who has just wandered into dangerous traffic before the light turns green or maybe to fetch a ball that has bounced into the street. IOW, there's ethical coercion and unethical coercion. Sometimes the two can be tricky to differentiate. Obviously the child is too young to give consent or all the time for everything, but it can be about saving the child's life and the parent having some levels of ethical coercion/control over the child.