I get that you see it that way. I think that might be shifting the goalposts of anarchism in the face of criticism, and I suspect the appeal to "zero rules" can be brought back later in less critical contexts.
But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright.
How is that different to the current global system? I mean it like, I was born in country A, then traveled to country B and C, and discovered actually I didn't like the culture and rules in country A, so I came to live in countries B and C. I can go where I like to choose the system of governance that suits me. None of these countries are anarchist....If anarchism speaks more to the relationship between an individual and a system, and less to the system itself, is it really a system of organization that could replace a social/political system, isn't it more just like a "guiding philosophy" for some individuals? Or a way of describing a set of things that some people might do, even if they are not "anarchists".
It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.
All of this was there from the earliest conceptions of anarchism.
The difference is one of degree. Moving to another country requires means to do so, and immigration procedures imposed on you by others that means inherently you have rules imposed on you wherever you go.
It also involves the state you move from imposing rules on you that you have never been free to consent to, and a central aspect of anarchism is to e.g reject that the state has a justifiable claim to regulate property in the first place, and so that unlike a flat share where you share a space that is actively used by others, the state attempts to monopolise commons with threats of force.
The degree seems to me to scale up. The sharehouse, the state. It's all the same thing. A sharehouse can be plenty coercive too. Parent - child ? Coercive. Personal relationships, they can be coercive too sadly. But "coercion" on the other side is just "the power of bad", it's psychology. Criticism and threats of penalties really do make people behave better. But it's complicated. Read "The Power of Bad".
And don't give me that complaints about immigration and means. An anarchist should be one for personal responsibility, choice, freedom and negotiation, should be able to bend reality to their will rather than complaining in the streets that it change, right? I guess I also wonder, what the hell do you replace the state with? I mean, states didn't just "magically appear" out of nowhere. They're born out of history of blood and death and suffering and overcoming endless civilizational challenges (Read "Why the West Still Rules For Now"), and I think there's a chance they're our current best solutions to the problem of organizing for stability.
If anarchism was a powerful personal philosophy, a couple rules and regulations would be not barrier. All is negotiation and anarchists are apparently adept at such. I don't get it. Sorry.
Why submit to the sharehouse bitch, but rail and wail against the state? I don't get it. It's the same dynamic. I think if you put the state on a pedestal over you, it's like a type of daddy complex where you are giving away your power. It's all just life. There's no getting around that's it's gonna be hard. Anarchists seem like they want to adapt and thrive, but then they're also complaining. I think their ideology has been misused and they're having an identity crisis.
I appreciate your responses and attitude and I'm not trying to be offensive to you. I'm tapping out of this discussion because I think it's a waste of time to discuss in this age, but I do appreciate your style. Best of luck to you both!
The biggest problem - people can't easily change countries nowadays (and even before borders, I bet traveling that far was cost prohibitive). So you end up in the situation where you have to follow rules of the contract, which you did not explicitly agreed to
If anarchists are anarchists, they shouldn't be cowed by "top down" rules, they should be able to find a way round them, to suit themselves, without destroying themselves. So that it's "not easy" to change countries shouldn't stop an "anarchist" because they're all about negotiation, personal responsibility and choice, and freedom right? Anarchists shouldn't be people crying in the streets how unfair it is that "big brother" is ruining their pathetic little lives. They should be the men and women of action, calculating and executing their next move for their maximum benefit, and possibly for humankind too.
And if it's voluntary, isn't everything voluntary? I voluntarily accept the social contract, or I end up in jail. I voluntarily accept the laws of physics, or I end up maimed or worse. Voluntary speaks to choice, which everyone has. But negotiated...I don't expect most sharehouses (or workplaces, or schools, or whatever) that you enter as a fresher will make their rules negotiable to you. But to another extent, in "advanced" society, the "law" is negotiable through he courts and lawyers, and blackmail, and in "less developed" society, negotiable through bribes and so on. I don't get where anarchism fits in.
It seems like, either it's something that doesn't make sense (no rules) but people believe it zealotly and use it as disguise for violence, or it's something that can work (rules and choice) but not something that works as some standalone organizing principle of a society that is somehow in opposition to the world today. I mean if anarchism is against society, isn't that oxymoron, because if you're anarchist, you can just exercise your choice and negotiate your way to a better situation for yourself? So you don't have to "change the world" just bend it to how you want it locally.
Am I being too sophist? I don't think so but I seem to be missing some point to anarchism. I might just not get what anarchism is, or maybe I don't want to get it. But it seems like it doesn't make sense to me.
It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.
The anarchist response to the problems you describe is to advocate the destruction of the state as they see it as inherently an aggressive, coercive abuse of power.
Your attempt at describing everything as voluntary misses that when we talk about something being voluntary, we expect it to be free of coercion. The threat of jail is coercive.
This is a typical left-right distinction where the left are concerned with de facto ability to exercise choice where the right are focused on de jure technical possibility of exercising choice.
As such anarchists argue for the dismantling and destruction of coercive power structures that prevents people from having the de facto ability to exercise free choices.
But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright.
How is that different to the current global system? I mean it like, I was born in country A, then traveled to country B and C, and discovered actually I didn't like the culture and rules in country A, so I came to live in countries B and C. I can go where I like to choose the system of governance that suits me. None of these countries are anarchist....If anarchism speaks more to the relationship between an individual and a system, and less to the system itself, is it really a system of organization that could replace a social/political system, isn't it more just like a "guiding philosophy" for some individuals? Or a way of describing a set of things that some people might do, even if they are not "anarchists".
It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.