No, I'm saying anarchy implies laws arranged by consent.
The existence of the KKK is not in violation of anything I suggested. If they want to be an abhorrent debating club, they should be free to.
But the moment they try to initiate aggression, it is justified for anyone to defend themselves, an anarchism would generally consider it justified for anyone to band together to defend themselves, against that aggression, up to and including e.g. creating militias or a standing police force.
The key points throughout are consent and voluntary association, and the ability to withdraw that consent at any time. Not absence of structure, but the minimal structure needed at any time, arranged by consent.
If anything, anarchists are obsessed with structure of society - that is why there are so incredibly many different anarchist ideologies.
I frankly find it bizarre that this is a difficult concept to understand, because conceptually it is very simple: Consider what happens if we delegate power bottom up, instead of appointing representatives who delegate power top to bottom.
In theory nothing needs to change other than that, if we believe that current systems accurately reflects the will of the people.
The reason we're even discussing this is that nobody - not supporters of anarchism or its detractors actually believe that current societies accurately reflects the will of the people.
But detractors assume that people will withhold consent to every structure they believe are needed to maintain a functioning society.
Ultimately it reflects a fear of democracy - a fear that most people will opt to let society collapse, and it's really quite odd to behold these arguments.
The existence of the KKK is not in violation of anything I suggested. If they want to be an abhorrent debating club, they should be free to.
But the moment they try to initiate aggression, it is justified for anyone to defend themselves, an anarchism would generally consider it justified for anyone to band together to defend themselves, against that aggression, up to and including e.g. creating militias or a standing police force.
The key points throughout are consent and voluntary association, and the ability to withdraw that consent at any time. Not absence of structure, but the minimal structure needed at any time, arranged by consent.
If anything, anarchists are obsessed with structure of society - that is why there are so incredibly many different anarchist ideologies.
I frankly find it bizarre that this is a difficult concept to understand, because conceptually it is very simple: Consider what happens if we delegate power bottom up, instead of appointing representatives who delegate power top to bottom.
In theory nothing needs to change other than that, if we believe that current systems accurately reflects the will of the people.
The reason we're even discussing this is that nobody - not supporters of anarchism or its detractors actually believe that current societies accurately reflects the will of the people.
But detractors assume that people will withhold consent to every structure they believe are needed to maintain a functioning society.
Ultimately it reflects a fear of democracy - a fear that most people will opt to let society collapse, and it's really quite odd to behold these arguments.