# Recognition vs. Violation: The Three Anarchisms
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [March 16, 2024, 10:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798 "2024-03-16T22:26:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2024, 10:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/1 "2024-03-16T22:26:04Z")
Anarchism A is universal consent recognition. All out harmony. Doable, but … the final frontier most of us are too ego-defensive to bring to fruition. Instead of cultivating this Kingdom of Ends (self=other), we cultivate excuses. This is a global Eden with no need for a state to enforce unnecessary laws, because no one violates consent. The state merely facilitates the arts & inquiries.
Anarchism B is universal consent violation—the usual misrepresentation. All out chaos. It self-destructs—it undoes (voids) everything. Everything shy of Anarchism A is some degree of Anarchism B…. which is just “the absence of Anarchism A” (a privation). Whenever the state facilitates competition in “the essentials of survival” and regulates (stifles) genuine creativity and inquiry, you are dealing with an unsustainable dead beast walking.
Update: The third option is Anarchism A. The 1st & 2nd options are variations of Anarchism B…click the down arrow:
> [@Recognition vs. Violation: The Three Anarchisms](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/8):
>
> state of nature, and consent violation & recognition… The noble (social) savage who would live in peace if their group was left alone. (They are untested by conflict. They have no tools for conflict resolution. Their state protects them from the overly individualistic.) The vicious (individualistic) savage who wants to control everything and fights everybody to the death for it who does not submit. (They have no real love. They miss the point. Their state protects them from the overly coll…
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2024, 6:22am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/2 "2024-03-17T06:22:32Z")
The difference between the nouns order and harmony is that order refers to arrangement, disposition, and sequence, while harmony refers to agreement or accord.
Certain aspects of nature exhibit hierarchical structures, such as ecological food chains or the organisation of biological systems from cells to organisms to ecosystems. Many biological organisms are organised hierarchically, with cells forming tissues, tissues forming organs, organs forming organ systems, and so on. This hierarchical organisation is fundamental to the functioning of living organisms. We see a certain arrangement, disposition, and sequence in nature.
On the other hand, anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of all justifications for authority. It seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy. This seems to arise because the individual participants are thinking beings that do not lend themselves to hierarchy without agreement or, failing that, coercion. If we want to achieve harmony, we must at least acknowledge the need for agreement or accord.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2024, 11:05am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/3 "2024-03-17T11:05:19Z")
Agreement or accord between consent structures is just consent recognition.
A taxonomy is not a hierarchy—you can zoom out and in & you need both/all.
The person/people with the most power is the person/people who serve(s) the most without being directed from outside (they have an internal locus of control regardless external attempts to exploit it). Without them, the organism breaks down. External attempts to exploit are… superfluous.
And such attempts are _not_ true agreement or accord.
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2024, 11:36am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/4 "2024-03-17T11:36:15Z")
These are many words put together but they do not construct a whole. Anarchism doesn’t work because we need order and hierarchy. However, we also need consent, agreement and accord.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2024, 11:55am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/5 "2024-03-17T11:55:56Z")
Actual agreement is Anarchism A. Recognition is order, but mutual. Each puts each other first… switches places. Even an expert at the given situation will care about how it affects every consent structure involved and consider their feedback (and not just give a required survey as a formality & then disregard it).
Anarchism B is disorder. Compulsion is not agreement. Dead while alive.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2024, 8:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/6 "2024-03-18T20:10:25Z")
Relevant:
[Unity of Consciousness and Cosmopoly in Plato and Kant](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j2NF8vbLPSE_zMrfZTJdjAUeTdui2v10xMuut9Uk358/edit)
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2024, 12:02am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/7 "2024-03-28T00:02:14Z")
Bob, I’m going to go this far with you.
If it’s OK to rule/discourage that within you which violates consent (as well as rule/encourage into action that within you which recognizes consent, because anything that does not violate consent … against such things there is no law, but we get stuck in old patterns…) … then as long as people put their shopping carts back where they belong, and nobody working full time is on (corporate) welfare, then they don’t need to be ruled (encouraged/discouraged), but if they don’t (put their shopping carts back where they belong, pay fair wages & charge fair prices), they do (need to be ruled). If you catch what I’m saying.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2024, 4:48am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/8 "2024-03-28T04:48:36Z")
state of nature, and consent violation & recognition…
1. The noble (social) savage who would live in peace if their group was left alone. (They are untested by conflict. They have no tools for conflict resolution. Their state protects them from the overly individualistic.)
2. The vicious (individualistic) savage who wants to control everything and fights everybody to the death for it who does not submit. (They have no real love. They miss the point. Their state protects them from the overly collectivistic.)
3. We have both in us — every individual is of equal importance and cannot develop in isolation — and must cooperate to resolve conflict in a way that recognizes rather than violates each other’s consent structures. Their state is one of self-rule.
Related:
> [@nature is...](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/nature-is/49498/2):
>
> Hobbes thought we tend toward individuation (a kind of war/conflict, but not between classes, as with Marx) that needs to be tamed by the state in order to survive together (as a group). Rousseau thought we tend toward cooperation (as simple barbarians, not as law-followers) that needs to be tamed by the state in order to survive as an individual. Locke thought we naturally follow laws of nature to maintain a natural cooperation… & that it is unnatural to violate that. Kant (& Socrates… if Th…
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2024, 7:09am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/9 "2024-04-01T07:09:15Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> If it’s OK to rule/discourage that within you which violates consent (as well as rule/encourage into action that within you which recognizes consent, because anything that does not violate consent … against such things there is no law, but we get stuck in old patterns…) … then as long as people put their shopping carts back where they belong, and nobody working full time is on (corporate) welfare, then they don’t need to be ruled (encouraged/discouraged), but if they don’t (put their shopping carts back where they belong, pay fair wages & charge fair prices), they do (need to be ruled). If you catch what I’m saying.
No, I don’t catch what you are saying.
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2024, 7:23am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/10 "2024-04-01T07:23:24Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> state of nature, and consent violation & recognition…
>
> 1. The noble (social) savage who would live in peace if their group was left alone. (They are untested by conflict. They have no tools for conflict resolution. Their state protects them from the overly individualistic.)
>
> 2. The vicious (individualistic) savage who wants to control everything and fights everybody to the death for it who does not submit. (They have no real love. They miss the point. Their state protects them from the overly collectivistic.)
>
> 3. We have both in us — every individual is of equal importance and cannot develop in isolation — and must cooperate to resolve conflict in a way that recognizes rather than violates each other’s consent structures. Their state is one of self-rule.
I see the warrior and the sage contesting each other in leadership. The warrior lacks a long-term strategy and fights battle after battle until there is no battle to be fought. The sage has the wisest advice but requires self-discipline and compassion, which is unpopular.
Those who are neither warriors nor sages are required to show their affiliation, and when they are scared, they choose the warrior. After the devastation, the sage becomes popular and is required to rebuild, but often her advice is not completely followed. The masses are easily spooked and run to the warrior, whose policies lack compassion and wisdom.
Rather than any form of anarchism, we need a recognition of the wisdom of compassion.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2024, 10:58am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/11 "2024-04-01T10:58:55Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> Relevant:
> [Unity of Consciousness and Cosmopoly in Plato and Kant](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j2NF8vbLPSE_zMrfZTJdjAUeTdui2v10xMuut9Uk358/edit)
Regarding your warrior and sage, they correspond to Plato’s, but he has a third…^
And together, they are Anarchism A…inside…& out (as many gathered of like mind).
If there be any uncompelled dancing (requiring no liquid courage), it is to that music.
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2024, 5:12pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/12 "2024-04-01T17:12:10Z")
I agree that the guardian or ruler who possesses both the qualities of wisdom (sage) and courage (warrior) is one we need, but the guardian/ruler is traditionally a sage who is able to bring the warriors under his command.
We often see in many contexts that leaders who prioritise strength and assertiveness over wisdom and thoughtful governance become prevalent. Societies today face challenges in finding leaders who embody the qualities of both wisdom an courage.
We seem to be moving away from prioritising the cultivation of qualities like wisdom, empathy, and critical thinking in our leaders. In education, the task of promoting ethical leadership, and fostering a culture that values cooperation and dialogue over aggression and dominance, requires wise teachers. Instead, many seem to be driven by a sense of entitlement.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2024, 6:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/13 "2024-04-01T18:28:02Z")
All three have to rule in homeostatic harmony.
To together defeat the dragon and play as innocent as a craftsman child, as wise as a guardian serpent (sage), and as brave as a warrior lion.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [April 5, 2024, 5:21am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/14 "2024-04-05T05:21:14Z")
Updated the OP.
Related:
[Kant’s original antagonism](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/kant-doing-hegel-nietzsche-b4-it-wuz-kewl/49028)
[Default/neutral (tabula rasa) good](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-golden-synthesis-of-ethics/48707/42)
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2025, 6:18am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/15 "2025-03-28T06:18:04Z")
Anarchism A:
> **[Pantisocracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantisocracy)**
>
> Pantisocracy (from the Greek πᾶν and ἰσοκρατία meaning "equal or level government by/for all") was a utopian scheme devised in 1794 by, among others, the poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey for an egalitarian community. It is a system of government where all rule equally. They originally intended to establish such a community in the United States, choosing a site on the banks of the Susquehanna River after considering other places such as Kentucky. By 1795 Southey had doubts about Ot...
Preceded by:
[https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/71363e3f-9b4d-41cb-b0be-a588bd409769/content](https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/71363e3f-9b4d-41cb-b0be-a588bd409769/content)
^before I became J
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2025, 12:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/16 "2025-03-28T12:53:39Z")
source: [https://youtu.be/qfnDzQB\_veI?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/qfnDzQB_veI?feature=shared)
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2025, 5:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/17 "2025-03-31T05:06:51Z")
We are each responsible for our own concrete (mutually consensual) sphere of influence (some call it a circle of care). If we overreach beyond the sphere of mutual consent, we abuse authority.
[@Ecmandu, this is why you must first gain consent rather than assuming it and unjustifiably condemning those who don’t give you that to which you one-way consent. Your condemnation is in disregard of the other’s consent. Therefore, no one is obligated to it, and it is actually you who are at fault. You cannot defeat this argument in cosmic court.]
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 3, 2025, 10:39am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/18 "2025-09-03T10:39:43Z")
> [@Could anyone clarify the tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility?](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/could-anyone-clarify-the-tension-between-individual-freedom-and-collective-responsibility/80684/113):
>
> If you put the power back into the hands of the people who originally have it—that is to say, if you recognize and acknowledge personhood— then anarchism is self-rule without need of a state except to facilitate in such matters. That only sustainably works if everyone is self-governed by mutual recognition… to the point they _understand_ AND _appreciate_ when the hammer (of the people) smacks down on them when they violate (knock out of balance) mutual recognition. In other words, when they stop playing fair and start cheating, they get kicked out out of the game until they’re ready to play like winners instead of losers. In a community of mutual recognition, the only way you can win is if nobody cheats, because the game comes to a screeching halt until all the players are playing according to the rules of mutual recognition. So it isn’t good for the community if a person stops playing by the rules. It is in the community‘s best interest to recognize the personhood of the individual— by smacking the hammer down until they are back in the game.
Apparently, this is still a topic of conversation.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [September 3, 2025, 11:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/19 "2025-09-03T11:06:03Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> We are each responsible for our own concrete (mutually consensual) sphere of influence (some call it a circle of care). If we overreach beyond the sphere of mutual consent, we abuse authority.
Do not expand your circle of care or sphere of influence faster than the rate at which you mutually respect the individuals within your current circle/sphere. That limit is required to maintain organic, sustainable growth. Don’t be a colonizer that uses up all the resources and kills the entire community due to inorganic, unsustainable, artificial growth.
---
### Author:  [@MrAuthoritarian](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/MrAuthoritarian)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2025, 1:14pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798/20 "2025-09-04T13:14:42Z")
Even in this thing you call Eden there is still the hierarchy and authority of God who acts as the commander or even beyond that in nature you have the natural hierarchy of predator versus prey. Nowhere in history has there ever been a permanent anarchy and nowhere in human history has anarchism ever flourished. Humanity will always be statist from chief tribal leaders, kings, emperors, prime ministers, presidents, and autocrats. The natural inclination of humanity is statism.
🤡
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/recognition-vs-violation-the-three-anarchisms/79798.md?page=2)