Anarchist Laws

According to Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and the other so-called “classical anarchists, anarchism is considered a focal point for political philosophy and activism. This is unlikely to be the case if individuals choose private security companies with less restrictive policies and are free to subscribe to protection agencies that offer differentiated service packages, some of which do not include mandatory jurisdiction to resolve disputes between members. The provision, interpretation and application of the rules are stand-alone and specialized services, and companies could potentially group these services differently. Market anarchists may assume that individuals will buy all these services in one package, as it will make more economic sense for individuals to subscribe to all, footnote 34, but it is not clear that this is the case. Some companies may only offer these services as a complete package, but it is conceivable that others can only make money by offering basic security services. Indeed, individuals vary in that they want to rely on self-help when dealing with other people, and they may prefer to do so in some areas of the law rather than others. Since the services of private security companies are demand-driven, how these companies bundle legal services depends in part on the services that individuals who are able to purchase them prefer. Typically, anarchist extremists in the United States are motivated by events – they show up at political congresses, economic and financial summits, environmental meetings, etc. They typically target symbols of Western civilization, which they perceive as the root causes of all of society`s grievances – that is, financial corporations, government institutions, multinational corporations, and law enforcement agencies.

They damage and destroy property, revolt, set fire and commit small bombings. Law enforcement is also concerned about anarchist extremists who may be willing to use improvised explosive devices or improvised incendiary devices. Furthermore, Halling suggests that if a community separates from an anarchist federation, it should still share its natural resources. Footnote 28 Finally, the anarchist abhors private property, summarized in the aphorism “Property is theft!” Footnote 29 Property is considered to be another hierarchical relationship. However, if the secessionist community refuses to divide, we return to the question of whether it can be applied. To the extent that the secessionist community must share its resources, it probably also has the right to participate in the natural resources of the community of origin, after which it looks less and less like secession. The crucial question for anarchists is therefore whether one should detach oneself from political life, whether one should submit to political authority and obey the law, or whether one should actively fight for the active abolition of the state. Those who choose to actively campaign for the abolition of the state often understand this as a form of “direct action” or “action propaganda.” The idea of direct action is often considered typical of anarchists who believe that something should be done to actively abolish the state, including: graffiti, street theater, organized occupations, boycotts, and even violence.

There are disputes between anarchists over what should be done, with an important dividing line on the issue of violence and criminal behavior. Christian anarchists, for example, will study Jesus` fall and his idea of giving the emperor what the emperor is entitled to (Matthew 22:15-22). The anarchist interpretation of this passage claims that it is an indication of both Jesus` dissatisfaction with the state and his reluctant acquiescence to political authority. Christoyannopoulos argues that “the political subversion of Jesus is achieved through submission rather than revolt” (Christoyannopoulos 2010:156). Crucifixion, according to this interpretation, is a subversive event that exposes political power as “demonic” and illegitimate. Jesus does not recognize the ultimate moral and religious authority of Caesar or Pilate. But he agrees with the political regime. Thus, some anarchists may simply be lenient and submissive. Third, the common law has a strong democratic tendency. He requested that both parties hear both parties fairly before an independent judge. An anarchist might object that the judge occupies a hierarchical position of superiority – although this is not an issue where both sides like to go to an arbitrator to resolve their dispute.

But even with a hesitant opponent, the judge`s decision is always influenced and shaped by the arguments of the parties. The law can change on the same day, if necessary, in response to the requests of the parties, and the law has indeed undergone such seismic changes, as individual cases mark the starting point for new doctrines. As a rule, an attempt is made to locate the result within a framework of consistency with previous decisions. Footnote 44 The outcomes of these other cases have been shaped in the same way by the parties to the proceedings themselves, so that after a thousand years we have a legal work that is shaped on a case-by-case basis by the parties involved and that is constantly evolving, according to time and circumstances. Given this type of antinomianism and nonconformism, it is easy to see that anarchism often includes a radical critique of traditional ethical norms and principles. Thus, radical ethical anarchism can be juxtaposed with what we might call bourgeois anarchism (where radical anarchism seeks to disrupt traditional social norms, and bourgeois anarchism seeks to free itself from the state that does not seek such disruption). And while some argue that anarchists are deeply ethical—committed to freedom and solidarity—others will argue that anarchists are moral nihilists who completely reject morality, or at least reject the idea that there might be a single source of moral authority (see essays in Franks & Wilson 2010). Anarchist Leon F. Czolgosz assassinated President William McKinley after being influenced by a speech by anarchist Emma Goldman. Some states had laws on criminal anarchy. The Supreme Court would eventually make clearer distinctions between the legal approval of the abstract doctrine it held the First Amendment protected against incitement to imminent illegal acts, which the judges decided not to be. (Photo available at the Library of Congress, public domain) Although most american-born anarchists at the time were peaceful (Fine 1955:778), anarchists in Europe, especially Germany and Russia, sometimes advocated violence.