Andrew T

You know, now that we have access to more historical anarchist literature than ever, if you dive into any of it and you get to the root of what anarchy is, it becomes very clear that anarchists were not into this whole terror of democracy thing. They weren't really into any form of democracy as in the rule by majority or the rule by some abstraction called the people.

You know, now that we have access to more historical anarchist literature than ever, if you dive into any of it and you get to the root of what anarchy is, it becomes very clear that anarchists were not into this whole terror of democracy thing. They weren't really into any form of democracy as in the rule by majority or the rule by some abstraction called the people.

You know, now that we have access to more historical anarchist literature than ever, if you dive into any of it and you get to the root of what anarchy is, it becomes very clear that anarchists were not into this whole terror of democracy thing. They weren't really into any form of democracy as in the rule by majority or the rule by some abstraction called the people.

Anarchism is really about, it's not just no ruler, it's also no rule. I've been brought into this understanding by the efforts of the translator and sort of scholar of anarchist history, Sean Wilber, who in my opinion is putting forward some of the best historical analysis of anarchism today. He's actually who inspired a lot of my definition of of authoritarian anarchism.

Anarchism is really about, it's not just no ruler, it's also no rule. I've been brought into this understanding by the efforts of the translator and sort of scholar of anarchist history, Sean Wilber, who in my opinion is putting forward some of the best historical analysis of anarchism today. He's actually who inspired a lot of my definition of of authoritarian anarchism.

Anarchism is really about, it's not just no ruler, it's also no rule. I've been brought into this understanding by the efforts of the translator and sort of scholar of anarchist history, Sean Wilber, who in my opinion is putting forward some of the best historical analysis of anarchism today. He's actually who inspired a lot of my definition of of authoritarian anarchism.

And so I'll have his work linked in the show notes, of course, but in this get into this sort of no rules definition of anarchy, a lot of people might ask, you know, wouldn't we still need rules? But of course, Enforceable rules are just really a form of laws that are backed by authorities, which anarchism opposes. And unenforceable rules are not really rules at all.

And so I'll have his work linked in the show notes, of course, but in this get into this sort of no rules definition of anarchy, a lot of people might ask, you know, wouldn't we still need rules? But of course, Enforceable rules are just really a form of laws that are backed by authorities, which anarchism opposes. And unenforceable rules are not really rules at all.

And so I'll have his work linked in the show notes, of course, but in this get into this sort of no rules definition of anarchy, a lot of people might ask, you know, wouldn't we still need rules? But of course, Enforceable rules are just really a form of laws that are backed by authorities, which anarchism opposes. And unenforceable rules are not really rules at all.

They're closer to norms of behavior. And if living in a society tells you anything, you should know that norms should be as open to questioning as the most rigid of rules. In fact, norms can be even more dangerous if we let them slide as just the way that things are and the way we do things around here.

They're closer to norms of behavior. And if living in a society tells you anything, you should know that norms should be as open to questioning as the most rigid of rules. In fact, norms can be even more dangerous if we let them slide as just the way that things are and the way we do things around here.

They're closer to norms of behavior. And if living in a society tells you anything, you should know that norms should be as open to questioning as the most rigid of rules. In fact, norms can be even more dangerous if we let them slide as just the way that things are and the way we do things around here.

We tend to speak a lot of, you know, the people and the community and stuff in anarchist circles, but I think it's important to make sure it's clear that there's nothing special about quote-unquote the people or quote-unquote the community. You know, what the people or the community thinks is right and wrong should not be a litmus test on what is right and wrong.

We tend to speak a lot of, you know, the people and the community and stuff in anarchist circles, but I think it's important to make sure it's clear that there's nothing special about quote-unquote the people or quote-unquote the community. You know, what the people or the community thinks is right and wrong should not be a litmus test on what is right and wrong.

We tend to speak a lot of, you know, the people and the community and stuff in anarchist circles, but I think it's important to make sure it's clear that there's nothing special about quote-unquote the people or quote-unquote the community. You know, what the people or the community thinks is right and wrong should not be a litmus test on what is right and wrong.

There's no virtue in being a majority. And there's also no virtue in being a minority. Because we can see with instances where there are minorities, such as the elite, the rich, who obviously have us over all the time. And then there are instances of majorities that just exist to reinforce a lot of the rules and norms and authorities that are keeping all of us down.

There's no virtue in being a majority. And there's also no virtue in being a minority. Because we can see with instances where there are minorities, such as the elite, the rich, who obviously have us over all the time. And then there are instances of majorities that just exist to reinforce a lot of the rules and norms and authorities that are keeping all of us down.

There's no virtue in being a majority. And there's also no virtue in being a minority. Because we can see with instances where there are minorities, such as the elite, the rich, who obviously have us over all the time. And then there are instances of majorities that just exist to reinforce a lot of the rules and norms and authorities that are keeping all of us down.

So a litmus test is not what a majority votes for, what a majority wants, or what minorities desire. It's really the absence of authority, the absence of this sort of power over others at all. And it's also inevitably the absence of permission and prohibition, the ability to permit things, the ability to prohibit things.

So a litmus test is not what a majority votes for, what a majority wants, or what minorities desire. It's really the absence of authority, the absence of this sort of power over others at all. And it's also inevitably the absence of permission and prohibition, the ability to permit things, the ability to prohibit things.