Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 2496835" data-attributes="member: 9952">If you consider the collective to be intrinsically oppressive, you are not lawful because you are concerned with your individual needs more than the needs of society. This is independent of the moral axis when I say 'intrinsically".No, I don't think you can stretch the anarchist to being lawful, not unless they succeeded in their mission & reforged society so that their ideology was dominant. In fact if you look at non-violent anarchist theorists such as Bakunin, he is wanting to tear down an oppressive social system & build a new society based on individual freedom & free associations. His emphasis was upon 'building' & he recognised the need for collective associations to safeguard individual rights (paradoxically!!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). Given this balance during the rebuilding stage I would consider the pacifistic anarchist to be neutral along the law/chaos axis.The part of your sentence "individuals can get out of control" clearly indicates a lawful point of view where the wellbeing of the collective needs to be protected over the rights of any individual.</blockquote>