How would an anarchist society stop someone from claiming your house to build a highway or a coal mine? “The self-defensive mechanisms” is just police again you just call it differently and it can do whatever it likes.
No, the self-defense mechanisms aren’t the same thing as “police”, since the former is structured bottom-up and the other one is top-down.
An anarchist society would be organized democratically so that the people affected by policies have a say in these decitions proportional to howeit affects them.
People with red hair would be burned, but to get to that point you have serious assumptions. That’s akin to saying “what if in a Utopia, everyone decided to kill themselves for fun?” It’s unrealistic and purely serves to derail the conversation against Democracy.
The legal means also protect property. Otherwise someone who is stronger can just take whatever they like from someone who is weaker.
I specified private property (absentee ownership), which is distinct from personal property (active usage ownership).
A house that I live in: personal property. A house I rent to someone else so they can live in it: private property.
That doesn’t change anything, does it? What’s stopping people from kicking me out of whatever place I am living in because they want it instead?
The self-defensive mechanisms established by the community I live in.
Anarchism doesn’t mean that humans can’t form societal structures. It just means that decisions are made bottom-up instead of top-down.
Hierarchical society doesn’t stop anyone with “higher rank” from claiming my house e.g. to build a highway or coal mine.
How would an anarchist society stop someone from claiming your house to build a highway or a coal mine? “The self-defensive mechanisms” is just police again you just call it differently and it can do whatever it likes.
No, the self-defense mechanisms aren’t the same thing as “police”, since the former is structured bottom-up and the other one is top-down.
An anarchist society would be organized democratically so that the people affected by policies have a say in these decitions proportional to howeit affects them.
So when you have 150 people in a society and 80 vote for people with red hair should be burned as witches what happens then?
I guess then the people with red hair will be burned. I don’t think that’s a realistic scenario, though.
If a state claims that a minority group deserves less/no rights and can be harmed without repercussions, what happens then?
People with red hair would be burned, but to get to that point you have serious assumptions. That’s akin to saying “what if in a Utopia, everyone decided to kill themselves for fun?” It’s unrealistic and purely serves to derail the conversation against Democracy.