Christian Anarchism

[Crixus]

Having been asked to discuss my beliefs as an anarchist and a Christian, I think it most prudent to begin this topic by first establishing what anarchism is.

Most people think of anarchists as a group of bomb-throwing hooligans who just want to destroy all constructs of order and bring society to a crashing halt. That, however, is not an anarchist, people could easily be forgiven this belief however, because that is what most statists would like them to believe, and thus have furthered the idea that anarchism is wholly for the unintellectual looking to stir-up mischief. Anarchism, however, is very much a tradition of intellectuals, it's rather uncertain how the notion came to be, however most point to Bakunin as the Anarchist parallel to Marx. In the later portions of the 19th century and early 20th century anarchism was wide-spread, even so much as to build international institutions such as the anarchist black cross, an organization to support political prisoners, and the anarchist international. However, anarchists became an easy scapegoat in many instances for those wishing to discredit them, and anytime a bomb was put to ill-use, or any action was seen that might serve to undermine the word of the industrialist bosses a cry of "anarchists!" could be heard, much as communists would be later blamed for any disruption in the divine capitalist order.

It would be far to exhaustive to explain anarchism, here, in its entirety, in brief however it would be easiest to say that anarchism is a belief in community and equality amongst men and the end of hierarchical statism. Anarchy is witnessed everyday between friends, family, and neighbors. When one helps his neighbor it is not because of governmental compulsion, but his own volition. Anarchism is often wrongly portrayed as desiring no rules, which is not what anarchism is about; anarchists understand that a community has potential for bad elements and thus must be policed, but those rules would not be imposed upon the community by some patriarchal overlord or a few oligarchs in a senate building half-way across the world. Anarchism is about the people truly governing themselves.

Christian anarchism is derived from the notion that because man is fallible, and because his laws can often contradict the word of god, no government of man can be right for a Christian. While one king maybe good the next will likely not be. As I interpret the bible there is a clear message to the faithful that they should be beholden to no lord but God. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

As I said that many anarchists look to Bakunin as their progenitor he, like Marx, maintained a dogma of atheism, which is why many Christians despise anarchists and communists. However it is his contemporary Tolstoy who many Christian anarchists feel to have been a major influence in their politics. Though never using the term anarchism himself his ideas were certainly parallel, however they were inclusive of God. Many non-Christian anarchists feel his works are of great value to their cause as well. You would probably be surprised to find that the history of anarchism is actually populated with quite a few Christians.

For my part, since I understand my views, I would like to understand why any Christian would be pro-state, since this is a forum for debate, if anyone holds such views I think it would make for an enriching discourse if they would care to post about them.

[Crixus]

All right. Although I admit Crixius using the word Statist with some distaste, the fact is irrelevent as to whether anarchism makes for a good - or Christian - social system. Let us get back to the questions for debate.

If you find offensive the way in which I wield the term statist I do apologize, I haven't intended any offense. My view of statism is from a perspective likely very different from most. As an anarchist, naturally I see statism as oppression so it is distasteful to me, however I do not condemn people for believing in statism because it has been the way in which things have worked for thousands of years. My hope is only that people, when reading what I've written, ponder their thoughts on the state, because for so long people have thought of the state as necessary and few have been exposed to an opposing view. The statists to whom I referred, certainly with some venom, are those who have sought to disinform people about the reality of anarchism. I would much have preferred to use their names, however I doubt if anyone knows their names. As such I used statist as a label to reference the purpose in their deceptions.

Just to let you know my perspective, I don't find anything you've said so far insulting in the least. You have done a very good job of presenting your information, especially to those unfamiliar with this topic such as me.

Well, I am glad that you have not be offended, however I can understand those that might be. Being as I am, anti-state, I certainly recognize I can be blinded by rhetoric and it often takes someone calling me on a faux pas before I recognize that I have made it.

What Biblical basis do you see for the support of anarchism?

As it reads to me, the bible gives the overwhelming impression that man is to avoid power and control because it is as much a vice as money or sex. This theme plays well to me throughout the whole book. As a Christian when I read the teachings of Christ I recognize that certainly Christ wants us to reject these material things, and I think that most people do recognize that. However, the beginning of any clear argument, that I can make, comes from before Christ, when Israel was ruled over by the judges in a system setup by Moses. In judges it says "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." - Judges 17:6. It is possible that the author intended this to mean that a king had become necessary because Israel had become lost, however as we know the kings of Israel lead them further astray than did the lack thereof.

It is not until later that the people of Israel decided that a king is necessary, and they turned to Samuel to find them a king, being distressed by this God said to him, "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." - Samuel 1 8:7. Prior to this point God was the only king of Israel, and that most of the kings of Israel were wicked and terrible characters seems to further the notion that power amongst men is unjustly wielded. As they continue the stories of Israel are rife with comments of the kingship that seem to espouse a disdain for the idea of one man wielding power over another or even many.

Now the argument for Christians, to me, seems much clearer as Christ was not beholden to any man, and his ideas threatened all powers of earth, it was this threat that drove the Pharisees to seek his execution. To me there is specific significance in this verse, though I have already referenced it I think it bears repeating, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."- Matthew 6:24. Now mammon is not, as it might appear, a foreign deity but in fact meaning earthly splendor. Christ is saying that the vices of the earth are a distraction from service to God. One could limit this meaning to solely material wealth, however I think that interpretation would excuse the worship of anything else and therefore would make little sense. Yet Christ is at his most direct in this issue when he tells us,"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave;" - Matthew 20:25-27. This makes difficult any argument for a Christian to hold authority, yet these passages are constantly dismissed or perhaps missed altogether, I cannot imagine how after reading these passages, a Christian could excuse the quest for power by other Christians. It is quite a profound statement to say that those who we are to honor are not the kings, but the servants.

We all have heard the famous words "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them;" - Matthew 7:12. It was Tolstoy's contention that "ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing wrong." An interpretation, which I think agrees with Christ's message. Clearly these statements place themselves at opposition to authority, and most Christians recognize that Christ was not in favor of ruling on earth, yet Christians continue to seek power amongst men. What bothers me is that no Christian seems to have an argument advocating power being wielded by a few, and yet they dismiss resisting it, even some go as far as to claim it is wrong to speak against the leaders. In fact it seems more that Christians reject it in the abstract, as if Christ was speaking to everyone else, but certainly not they, nor their leaders. This I have no argument for, because a person in this mind has blinded himself with nationalism, and called it Christianity.

[otseng]

I can certainly see a case to be made for anarchism from the Bible.

What are your thoughts on Rom 13:1?
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

[Crixus]

What are your thoughts on Rom 13:1?
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

This is an argument I hear often, but I have to question what Paul is saying here. If the "powers" are referring to earthly kings then he is condemning all acts which resist the will of earthen rulers. However I do not believe Paul can be referring to human powers, and it is this line "the powers that be are ordained of God." that is telling of this. Because if this were true, then God would never have said of Israel, "They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but without my knowledge." - Hosea 8:4.

Honestly I am not certain of what Paul is trying to say here, but if we follow the adage of let scripture interpret scripture I cannot see any scriptural interpretation that would mean, absolute submission to earthly powers is the will of God.

[otseng]

If the "powers" are referring to earthly kings then he is condemning all acts which resist the will of earthen rulers.

However, going on in the chapter, the context is in regards to earthly rulers.

Rom 13:2
"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

Rom 13:3
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:"

Rom 13:4
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Rom 13:5
"Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

Rom 13:6
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."

Rom 13:7
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

I agree that God's original plan for Israel was for God himself to be the King and not to have a man as a king. But, Israel was a distinctive group. God was central to their society and prevaded all aspects of their lives. There was no debate on the written law and was accepted as fact that the law was divine. Violations of the law were not breaking commonly agreed laws, but laws directly given by God. Societies now don't have these distinctives.

One strong argument I do see for anarchism is that Jesus himself avoided positions of earthly power. And as Christians, aren't we supposed to follow Jesus' example?

There are some other practical problems I see with anarchism. One is international relations. The anarchistic group would not have any formal recognition internationally. This might not be a problem if the group was self-sufficient. But it might pose a problem with international trade (currency exchange immediately comes to mind). Also international travel would be greatly limited.

In the US, probably the only places it can be realized are on Indian reservations. I'm not too familiar with Indian reservations. But since they are technically the only sovereign nations in the US, they would be the only places that could even try anarchism.

[Crixus]

However, going on in the chapter, the context is in regards to earthly rulers.

Rom 13:2
"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

Rom 13:3
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:"

Rom 13:4
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Rom 13:5
"Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

Rom 13:6
"For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."

Rom 13:7
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Yes, but if indeed Paul is intending here that God ordains all powers on earth then he is contradicting God himself, as I already pointed out. Aside from that he would also be contradicting other New Testament canon that states, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12. So how can we be wrestling against these things according to Ephesians and be damned for that very act in Romans? This is why I say scripture must interpret scripture, because this one chapter seems to advocate contrarily to much of what the rest of the bible holds true.

I doubt highly that Paul is intending to condemn Moses for resisting the Pharaoh , or David for resisting Saul. And what of Shadrach, Meshach , and Abednego, should they have worshiped Nebuchadnezzar’s Idol? Obviously Paul cannot be intending what is so commonly believed by this passage or he would be damning many of the most prominent figures in the bible.

I agree that God's original plan for Israel was for God himself to be the King and not to have a man as a king. But, Israel was a distinctive group. God was central to their society and prevaded all aspects of their lives. There was no debate on the written law and was accepted as fact that the law was divine. Violations of the law were not breaking commonly agreed laws, but laws directly given by God. Societies now don't have these distinctives.

No, societies however do hold to universal laws, which prevent the obstruction of other’s liberties. If the whole of your laws are essentially do not afflict others, then you need little else, unless of course you seek a society driven by wealth and privilege, and then you need many laws in order to prevent the under-classes from claiming that which should rightfully be theirs.

One strong argument I do see for anarchism is that Jesus himself avoided positions of earthly power. And as Christians, aren't we supposed to follow Jesus' example?

As Christians we must follow his teachings. Following his footsteps as well, however to find his intentions on Christians in power we need not attempt such a vague interpretation because he, as I already pointed out, directly told his follower not to wield power over men. This is stated in Matthew 20:25-27 however to point out scripture interpreting scripture, it is repeated in Mark 10:42-44 "You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." I honestly have no question about how Christ felt about his followers being masters of other men.

There are some other practical problems I see with anarchism. One is international relations. The anarchistic group would not have any formal recognition internationally. This might not be a problem if the group was self-sufficient. But it might pose a problem with international trade (currency exchange immediately comes to mind). Also international travel would be greatly limited.

Anarchists would not necessarily reject international relations, however the international community might be hesitant to recognize them. Currency would be less of an issue, and would probably be easily accept world wide because the anarchist currency would not be based upon markets but would probably represent a certain quantity of a commodity, as gold used to be the standard for world currencies to be valued on before currencies markets.

In the US, probably the only places it can be realized are on Indian reservations. I'm not too familiar with Indian reservations. But since they are technically the only sovereign nations in the US, they would be the only places that could even try anarchism.

A reservation may be the only place in the U.S. that could accept anarchism without raising alarms. Yet no struggle for freedom can come without raising alarms. Certainly the shackles of the British monarchy were not thrown off without notice, and apartheid was not crushed without protest by those losing power. So a reservation might prove a good place for another trial of anarchism, however anarchism is about the struggle of all people, so no anarchist society could seclude itself and ignore the slavery that exists world-wide. Much as the idea of democracy only 250 years ago, anarchism is the belief that to be subject to powers out of your control is slavery, and slavery is inhuman wherever it is found.

[otseng]

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12. So how can we be wrestling against these things according to Ephesians and be damned for that very act in Romans?

I believe Rom 13 and Eph 6 are talking about two different things. Rom 13 refers to earthly government. Eph 6 talks about spiritual forces.

I doubt highly that Paul is intending to condemn Moses for resisting the Pharaoh , or David for resisting Saul.

I don't believe either that Paul was condemning Moses or David. As for David, wasn't God the one who chose David to be king?

And what of Shadrach, Meshach , and Abednego, should they have worshiped Nebuchadnezzar’s Idol?

They knew the consequences of not worshipping Nebuchadnezzar’s idol. And they were willing to pay the price for civil disobedience.

No, societies however do hold to universal laws, which prevent the obstruction of other’s liberties.

How do you define a "universal law"?

Following his footsteps as well, however to find his intentions on Christians in power we need not attempt such a vague interpretation because he, as I already pointed out, directly told his follower not to wield power over men.

What about elders and bishops?

1Pe 5:5
"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder."

1Ti 3:1
"This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

Currency would be less of an issue, and would probably be easily accept world wide because the anarchist currency would not be based upon markets but would probably represent a certain quantity of a commodity, as gold used to be the standard for world currencies to be valued on before currencies markets.

Gold bullions could certainly be used (which actually I'm in favor of using).

Much as the idea of democracy only 250 years ago, anarchism is the belief that to be subject to powers out of your control is slavery, and slavery is inhuman wherever it is found.

So what is the strategy of anarchists to promote their cause?

[Crixus]

I believe Rom 13 and Eph 6 are talking about two different things. Rom 13 refers to earthly government. Eph 6 talks about spiritual forces.

I believe Ephesians is speaking of spiritual powers, however I believe it is referring to the spiritual evil that controls the earthen powers. So we wrestle not against flesh and blood, I believe, is intended to say that the persecutions that were taking place were not the works of men but the influence of evil upon them.

I think Ephesians is in the same vein as when Christ was shown all the kingdoms of the earth, "And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." - Luke 4:6. Obviously satan is claiming the kingdoms of the earth to be his to give to whomever he please, and I think Ephesians essentially reiterating this.

I don't believe either that Paul was condemning Moses or David. As for David, wasn't God the one who chose David to be king?

Yes, David succeeded Saul who was the first king of Israel anointed by God.

They knew the consequences of not worshipping Nebuchadnezzar’s idol. And they were willing to pay the price for civil disobedience.

Yes, but if we are to take Paul's words as often they are interpreted then he is saying not to accept the earthly consequences of disobedience, but that "they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Clearly if that is to mean that resisting earthly powers warrants damnation then Paul would be damning Shadrach, Meshach , and Abednego.

How do you define a "universal law"?

Those laws that are held universally, or at least very near to universally, by societies of the world. Such as do not kill, do not rape, do not take what doesn't belong to you, ect.

What about elders and bishops?

1Pe 5:5
"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder."

1Ti 3:1
"This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

I believe Peter is saying respect your elders because they are the wiser. He continues Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. So Peter is once again saying not to seek control over others, but that we should serve each other.

Anarchists do not reject the concept of the "elder" being an authority, but their is a difference in being an authority on something, there by warranting respect, and having authority, thereby subjecting others to your will.

The reference to bishops in Timothy however is a request for internal temperance amongst the brotherhood, insisting that anyone who seeks a respected position be a capable person. Yet the question of what is meant by bishop goes back to the issue of having authority and being an authority. A bishop is one who is respected for his knowledge and looked to as an authority, at this time a bishop is certainly not a man who wields great power over other men.

Gold bullions could certainly be used (which actually I'm in favor of using).

Well, it might be the gold itself, though likely it would be a certificate representation of the gold or whatever commodity is chosen, as the dollar used to be.

So what is the strategy of anarchists to promote their cause?

There is no one strategy. Strategies very from total revolution to complete non-resistance. The question, to me, is honestly what is the best way to bring about change, in my mind it is to show others that you promote a benevolent belief and therefore let the will of the people change the world. Yet some believe that they must lash out with violence, I'm not so sure that this is the best method though it has been the most successful in past revolutions.

[otseng]

I am beginning to get converted over to anarchism.

Practically, how can anarchism be realized today?

[Corvus]

If you find offensive the way in which I wield the term statist I do apologize, I haven't intended any offense. My view of statism is from a perspective likely very different from most. As an anarchist, naturally I see statism as oppression so it is distasteful to me, however I do not condemn people for believing in statism because it has been the way in which things have worked for thousands of years. My hope is only that people, when reading what I've written, ponder their thoughts on the state, because for so long people have thought of the state as necessary and few have been exposed to an opposing view. The statists to whom I referred, certainly with some venom, are those who have sought to disinform people about the reality of anarchism. I would much have preferred to use their names, however I doubt if anyone knows their names. As such I used statist as a label to reference the purpose in their deceptions.

You must forgive my stern chastisement, Crixius. Being passionate about literature and writing, I'm sensitive to tone, but was more concerned about the direction of the thread. I can understand your distaste of statism and respect it. I think I used the stick without the apple, so to speak, and should additionally state that there is no question in my mind that you have represented anarchism to the best of your ability. I know it is a difficult task, since anarchist theory is not unified or in any way definite for all anarchists.

I am beginning to get converted over to anarchism.

Practically, how can anarchism be realized today?

I'm sceptical about it being realised any time soon, but it could happen some time in the future. The problem is that the government's duties and its service is inflating not decreasing. That is, we're inclining towards communism, not anarchism.

I also have to express some concern over the actual direction of anarchism. Anarchism, from what I have heard stated here by Crixius, consists of self-governed communities with differing ideologies but with a basic set of universal laws. People will, apparently, flock to the communities that best represent their beliefs:

As to the issue of community, it should be expected in a non-capitalist society that people would be free to group together with those of like-mind, instead of moving to where they can afford, and would do so naturally so compulsory community would not be necessary, and being that an anarchist society would necessarily be open. Discrimination and such things would have to be erased for the community to be anarchic. You could not for example have a racist or sexist anarchist society because those things would destroy the ideals of equality which anarchism is based around.

What I fear, Crixius, is that these communities will be segregated based on belief. I worry that this will encourage the narrow-minded and discriminatory perspectives to which some, but not all, country towns are subject, where esteem and public opinion make or break a man or woman.

To quote Stendhal in Scarlet and Black;

To tell the truth, these same worthy people exercise here the most irritatingly despotic control. And that is why, for one who has lived in that great republic men call Paris, life in these little towns is insupportable. The tyranny of public opinion - and what sort of opinion! - governs these out-of-the-way corners of France every whit as foolishly as in the backwaters of a small American town.

[Crixus]

I am beginning to get converted over to anarchism.

I prefer the belief that all people start as anarchists, but eventually become overwhelmed by the horror that the world has become. Much as Christians often start strong in their beliefs, only to become exhausted in the face seemingly insurmountable odds.

I am however glad that anything I have said has made sense to you enough for you to give it thoughtful consideration.

Practically, how can anarchism be realized today?

Well, I can't say I have a straight answer for that, however my observation is that if any real motion is going to be seen towards anarchy, then anarchists must make great strides to break through the notion that anarchy is chaos. Obviously any sane person wants to keep the world around them from descending in to utter chaos, and as such this ill-begotten concept of anarchism being nothing more than reckless disorder is impeding the legitimacy that anarchism, as a political philosophy, deserves.

However, since the fall of the "iron-curtain" and most of the Stalinist regimes, anarchism has been able to begin rebuilding its image, and has begun increasing in numbers with some success. I must say that the internet has likely played a key role in this resurgence as well. The 90's saw the rise of the "black-bloc" and its fame at the WTO in Seattle, however I can't say that I consider this is a path worth pursuing further. I think that this type of activity may become a burden on the image of anarchism being a peaceful belief in equality. Although, I can't entirely discount it either, so long as no one gets hurt, such attention from the media does tend to make some people wonder about the motives of the participants. But on the other side of that coin are the vast majority of people who will see people vandalizing a Starbucks, hear the word anarchists and immediately assume that their is no logical motive or symbolism in the act, and I think that this is likely the most common reaction.

Yet, I am actually optimistic, as I see in my town there are anarchist collectives that do just about everything from carpentry to soccer teams, there's even an anarchist cafe and a few publications, one just resurfacing after some 80 years. I have also recently found out that there is plan for a major anarchist showing at the Democratic National Convention in July. This is significant because anarchist events are often usurped by the Democratic party, (May Day here was for certain) in their "anybody but the republicans"(meaning the democrats) campaigns. Obviously though, none of this means anything if the minds of the people cannot be swayed ,and I believe this to be the most important step, because unlike any other form of society, anarchy cannot be imposed by force, it must be born of and maintained by the will of the masses.

I apologize if this response seems to fall short of answering your question but the question is honestly one that I cannot answer, however there are numerous discussions on this topic within anarchist circles.

I'm sceptical about it being realised any time soon, but it could happen some time in the future. The problem is that the government's duties and its service is inflating not decreasing. That is, we're inclining towards communism, not anarchism.

Well, we certainly are heading towards a greater centralization of powers, yet I believe this is all the more reason to make your voice heard amongst the rabble. Even if the fight is doomed from the start, as Zapata once said "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

I also have to express some concern over the actual direction of anarchism. Anarchism, from what I have heard stated here by Crixius, consists of self-governed communities with differing ideologies but with a basic set of universal laws. People will, apparently, flock to the communities that best represent their beliefs:

What I fear, Crixius, is that these communities will be segregated based on belief. I worry that this will encourage the narrow-minded and discriminatory perspectives to which some, but not all, country towns are subject, where esteem and public opinion make or break a man or woman.

Well, the communities wouldn't necessarily have differing beliefs, although that is a certainty in some cases. Yet the world today is much the same way, but less accepting of diversity than an anarchist society should be. And while I do hold the same concerns, that communities would attempt to forge their own non-anarchic community ruled by some dubious ideology, they are concerns which I feel are less warranted under the anarchist system, than they would be today. Under the modern system we have a representative government, and below that we have somewhat of a populistic-bureaucracy, a system which is easily corrupted in a small community because 51% of the vote is all that is needed in such a system, and those small communities are very homogenous in the way they think today, so 51% of a vote is usually a drop in the hat for the communities. However in an anarchist system it is likely that any vote taking place would need at least an overwhelming majority if not unanimity. It is also important to note that these would not be issues as we have to day, most of them will be purely managerial for the community to maintain an economy. The only issue I can think of that might truly cause any tension would be the abortion issue, and the decision of exactly when to declare the beginning of life. Other than these, and in some places including these, laws would likely not be made; so long as the community has a grip on keeping the universal laws in order they shouldn’t need much else.

Yet I also must point out that while some of the communities will prefer isolation that is certainly not the vision of anarchism. Anarchist communities must be geographically separate in order to reap the commodities of the areas that contain them and thereby sustain the other communities and maintain any semblance of a modern civilized world. And because people tend to desire a life in cultural climates that suit them, then they will likely pursue those communities that offer them that. Yet I did not mean to give visions of cultic communes hiding in the boondocks and festering in their backward beliefs. I was more intending convey that if a person today wishes to live in say New York, and enjoys the lifestyle, and the environment, but happened to be born in Texas it would be difficult for them to move there due to the financial shackles that most of us are born with. In an anarchist society movement would be much freer because those economic bonds would not longer be so prevalent. This freedom of movement would of course mean that people, having chosen to live where they do, will be more inclined toward their neighbors, and thus presumably form a more cohesive community than those we see in capitalist societies.