• SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I thought absence of a state was kind of core to anarchy. Wouldn’t any sort of elected official or rights enforcing body be the de facto state regardless of how you frame it?

    Though, I’m not trying to debate, just trying to grasp the concept, so if y’all have something like an anarchist pamphlet I’ll be glad to take that and go lol. Longer literature is fine but no promises on when it’ll get read.

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah no sweat I’m not an authority on anarchy if you’ll excuse the pun and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/ is probably going to be a better source

      I think the biggest difference between what I was describing and a state is the individuals elected are not part of any governing body or political party and are granted authority by a community for a specific purpose/job.

      In general and broadly somewhere between ‘that’s Diane we elected her during the last community meeting to take care of the roads for the next 5 years based on community funds because she’s got some good ideas on how to do that we mostly agree on’ and ‘the person you elected is a member of a governing body representing a political party following a bureaucracy of processes and they’re in charge of police, education, roads, etc so if you want anything done get your wallet ready for lobbying and if you try to fix that pothole yourself it’s illegal’ a line is crossed.