Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.


–1 vote

I was misinterpreted there; I was referring to compulsory obedience towards a system, not compulsory voting. What would stop a rapist from simply opting out of the system and raping people? How would you maintain order while still giving people an option to opt out of the system?

The common response to the "tyranny of the majority" argument is that one may opt out at any time, but I see this as fundamentally flawed.

I'm not exactly clear on what system you're referring to. These may help you find an answer you're seeking. There's probably more questions that discuss the question you asked on here. 

anyone that says one may opt out of the "tyranny of the majority" is delusional. or, considers being killed or imprisoned by the state a viable way of "opting out".

but more to your question: what do you mean by "maintain order"? at face value, that is the very crux of the job of police in a stateful society. why would an anarchist want a world where the job of cops is somehow perpetuated?
i don't see how you were misrepresented. it was you who brought in compulsory democracy, which in every case of which i'm aware, is expressed by compulsory voting. if you have something else in mind it's on you to make that clear. this new question doesn't make it clear.

using thought experiments, like your theoretical ever-raping rapist come across to me every bit on par with those ancaps use. why? because they mutely presuppose far too much in narrowing our relations to far too little.
[moved from http://anarchy101.org/10867/maintain-order-while-still-letting-people-democracys-ruling]

the rapist in your (op) scenario has not opted out of the system, they have simply ignored one or more of the supposedly compulsory laws.  if they get caught (by the state), they have no way of opting out of the system that will imprison or kill them. that's a pretty shallow view of "opting out", imo.

no, truly (and fully) opting out does not seem like an option to me. and believe me, i have been trying for decades. like that rapist, i can choose to ignore various laws and other social norms. but that is a far cry from existing outside the system - and more importantly, avoiding its impact on my life.
I suspect the questioner is conflating two separate themes here;  the first, and superficial, is the opting out of any system of coercion;  the second, and underlying, is the issue of what happens when an outlier re-enters that system by interacting with another individual embedded in the given system.  The resultant of the second, of course, is that the outlier is now again recaptured by the system, and will be treated by the system as would any 'voluntary' participants.

(This would be an interesting discussion, if it was not couched in such knee-jerk trigger terms.  The relations between outliers and the systems that claim monopoly to the necessities of life bear heavily, both upon many of our comrades of the day, and upon our own ability to separate ourselves from the 'system' in any near future.)

[Note:  transferred blindly from the other thread of the same name, may be out of logical order here. - clod.]
@af:  "...they [mutely] presuppose far too much in narrowing our relations to far too little."

i like that.
You weren't misinterpreted, but perhaps you were unclear? This is basically the same question I answered previously. Here are some things I want to know: What do you mean "maintain order"? is this a desirable state of affairs? Why?

What are the flaws you see in the arguments re: tyranny of the majority?

1 Answer

–1 vote
Opt out? No one's letting you opt out of the system, unless you would like to leave. I think you misunderstood our position; we advocate for free associations of collectives within a greater democracy, the former in which you have the ability to opt out of. Within socialism, you would always have the sufficient resources needed to leave, so there would be no external pressure to endure the reign of a majority that didn't satisfy your desires.

I push for a participatory consensus democracy, in which I have a few of my own little kinks added in that I won't go into full depth here.
by (310 points)
"No one's letting you opt out of the system, unless you would like to leave."

i don't really get that.

"we advocate for free associations of collectives within a greater democracy, the former in which you have the ability to opt out of."

ok, so you can opt out of your free associations, but not of the "greater democracy"? how exactly is that different from the current systemic cesspool of democratic stateliness?

also, who is this "we" that advocates as such?