No thanks. I like my theory to be from the current century. You know the one where we have stuff like the internet, imminent climate disaster and the hindsight of the soviet regime.

Also starting a cooperative is no individual solution. It’s a first step towards establishing a collective economy. Which could fuel the collective spirit and start a political movement.

I actually don’t care about the pay. As long as I can buy food and pay my bills I don’t care. I would be willing to work for less than minimum wage if it meant I could have a say in my workplace.

And honestly it doesn’t even need to be a tech syndicate. I would be willing to work for any syndicate, and most areas have some kind of IT.

My main reason is ideological. Why should I waste my precious time working in a job that doesn’t advance my goals of creating a freer society? while also making pennies for some shareholder at the top? on top of that I get bored of doing the same thing over and over again. I want my work to have more variance.

And I guess while being truly international is kinda difficult it seems that it’s a lot easier within the EU and USA.

I’ve reached that point where I’m good at programming but require to explain my ideas to someone or I just give up because it seems like too much effort for no benefit. So even someone who doesn’t really know any programming but can listen and think along would be a important.

Yeah. You’re right. There couldn’t really be that hard of a line between citizens and non-citizens. And because the hierarchy wouldn’t really be based on violence and more just deferring of skill and effort it wouldn’t really be a hierarchy at all.

But I still think that having anarchist-friendly states is possible. Maybe by having a border that can get moved as the demographics change or through territories voting to join either the anarchist side or the state side.

Top down management structure. You still have a person or a group of people who command different branches like Education, Transport, Healthcare, Emergency response, Recourse allocation (water, food, electricity), Construction/Maintenance (Basically ministries). All of these are organised the same as they are in states. Top down. Vertical. Except at any point you can renounce your citizenship in which case none the benefits and responsibilities apply to you.

Oh yeah forgot to write that company means any grouping of Individuals with the purpose of engaging in the economy. It’s a very general definition and doesn’t necessarily require money.

But to answer your question. Nothing. Because participation is voluntary if you don’t wish to be part of this “state” then you cannot be forced. The idea is there to be a space for those who want to be part of a state.

Actually It’s very likely that if you allow people to create these voluntary bureaucracies then every party will probably create their own.

I used country because I couldn’t use state as “without the threat of violence it is no longer a state.”

Isn’t anarchy specifically managed bottom up? What if this state still has elections, government, ministries, state-run education and the like? Would that still be anarchy? I wouldn’t call it anarchy, I’d call it minarchy. Because by being voluntary it is fundamentally minimising it’s authority.

Borders and land ownership would be dynamic. If a citizen lives on a piece of land or citizens manage a company that land and company become part of the state. As soon as the people/companies move the border moves as well.

Fitting money into a minarchist state is tricky as even if participating in the state is voluntary money could still be exchanged outside of it. Unless you make the state currency digital and ensure that those who revoke their citizenship also lose access to their funds, but that’s probably going to create a secondary “unofficial” currency. money is tricky.

And does a state need to have an elite? If the minarchist party is comprised of influential and trusted community figures that are focused solely on the benefit of their community would that make them an elite? Could a state function with a benevolent elite?

I guess all of this is describing less of a state and more of a voluntary elected bureaucracy. But isn’t that what minarchy is? And couldn’t we transition a state to that?

So what do you call a country that has voluntary membership and community policing? One that doesn’t have a police force or a justice system and is instead maintained by the will of all of it’s citizens, as those who don’t wish to be a part of the country can just leave.

Anarchism doesn’t have law. It has customs. Law is a specifically worded series of commands that must be followed and if broken be interpreted by the legal system in order to determine the punishment. You cannot have law without also having the justice/legal system. Crime in anarchism is handled not by the courts but by the surrounding community on a case-by-case basis.

That is at least how I see it. What is the point of writing down pages and pages of commands if the only ones that enforce them are the people themselves. I think with law people will just start arguing semantics or interpretation instead of the actual severity, effect and consequences for the crime.

Here is the AFAQ section on law: I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights? https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.html#seci73

What anarchists propose instead of the current legal system (or an alternative law system based on religious or “natural” laws) is custom – namely the development of living “rules of thumb” which express what a society considers as right at any given moment. However, the question arises, if an agreed set of principles are used to determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?

When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist in my eyes.

We need a new name for them. I call them oxymorons but sadly I don’t think that’s distinctive enough. Totalitarian Capitalists/TotCaps? Fremcs (shortend from free-market capitalist)? Kinda hard to say. Maybe something with yellow or gold or money? golks? Dollups (from Dollar) (I think that’s a word already)?

whatever they are they are 100% archic. no an- or min- in sight.

Are we really going to let them decide our terms? If you’re letting others decide terms then anarchy means “The Purge”. Socialism means state control. and communism means gulags and secret police or social scores.

When I say minarchism then I mean “minimal archy” with “archy” being the same as anarchy. Capitalism is archy. Anyone I’d be comfortable calling a minarchist should oppose it, or at least try and minimise it. Anyone wanting to give power to any oppressing group is not a minarchist.

how exactly you define a state

I’m seeing that from these comments. I consider the state a top-down managed structure with some form of governance and control/management of “it’s people” aka citizens. A state has clear ruling class who dictate the customs or laws of the population.

It’s at this point the enforcement of those laws comes into play and things get tricky. Having a separate group privileged with enforcement allows that group to decide how to enforce laws. As we’ve seen that wont do. 1312. The anarchist solution is security culture, making the enforcement of customs ¹ the responsibility of every person. However couldn’t that work with a state? It does requires more involvement and confrontation which is why I think anarchists should try and help out with this whenever they can. As any good anarchist would be used to de-escalation and conflict resolution.

¹: using laws in this context doesn’t seem right as laws are too specific to be enforced by everyone. Which would require some form of justice system which has the same problems as the police. they 1312 too.

And objectively it isn’t that much more difficult to maintain a state, but because it’s those same “jobs” and “culture” that are going to keep a lot of people back and I think we need to account for them and try and coexist and cooperate with them instead of just yelling “statist” and excluding them.

I’m not saying we try and turn the state into something anarchic. I’m saying we try and work alongside people who need² the state to make sure they consider us if they get in power. It’s a lot easier to oppose a state that doesn’t try to control you.

²: read “aren’t willing to let go of”

I’m just trying to have faith in people and think that even when they aren’t willing to live like me they can still accept me, I feel like the right thing to do is accept them in turn. I’m probably very naive but that’s why I’m an anarchist in the first place.

For the anarchist side, absolutely. But what about the rest? Those who aren’t willing to let go of the “old ways”? Those who have been raised to believe that law and order must be maintained? There should exist some mechanism through with they can be allowed to engage with the social revolution, otherwise they turn against you. Allowing them to federate would ensure they have a place and could help instead.