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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 collectivistic.)
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.
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.