Talk:Anarchist law

Kropotkin
This article is too Kropotkin oriented and thus, not neutral. It portrays him as the only anarchist theorist. It needs a cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro Alatorre Vargaslugo (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of diverse strains of thought?
That isn't quite true. While anarchism has many diverse strains of thought, it doesn't reach into the dozens. Really, there's anarchism without adjectives, anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, Green Anarchism, queer anarchism, black anarchism, and anarcha-feminism. Then, there's Agorism, Egoism, Panarchism, Mutualism, and Voluntaryism. Then, Christian Anarchism, Zenarchism, and other religious anarchisms. Well, maybe it reaches two dozen, so this would technically apply, but it's still a bit misleading. There are certainly not three dozen anarchist strains of thought, especially when you cut out the ones that aren't anarchist, the ones that call themselves anarchist but aren't in a historical context, or consolidate the very, very similar ones together. Ejdoyle (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anarcho-Capitalism, Voluntaryism and National anarchism are not considered an anarchist school of thought, or at least the academic definition of anarchism. Anyone can call themselves anarchist but it doesn't matter, unless they have some moral, philosophical or practical connection to anarchism there are infinite strains of anarchism, anyone can pick up anarchism and add some new concept to the idea or mold it to serve a specific belief, time period, culture or otherwise, that's partially what makes it so strong it is extremely flexible, there just needs to be some connection to anarchism the belief in no rulers. I just relized I am responding to someone from 2009... Hopefully this clears it up. Vallee01 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision making section should probably go
I think the inclusion of this section is dubious at best, but having it privilege direct democracy makes no sense. The logical conclusions of the non-aggression (against non-aggressors!) and voluntary association principles is that under an anarchist legal regime people are going to decide, within their own associations, to use all kinds of decision-making processes -- including delegated and representative ones. The fact is that consensus has all kinds of its own problems and even at its best only works in certain contexts. There is nothing more inherently anarchist about direct democracy. This is either biased, illogical, or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzoliche (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the Non-Coercion section should either go or be edited rather than the Decision making one, as The Non-aggression principle is more of a concept by non-anarchist thinkers that are more against government intervention than any of the other ideas presented. Actually this entire article needs someone more informed to look at it, as every section has its own problems and difficulties connecting to Anarchist Theory. Social Contract Theory is from John Locke which is more of an argument for the State so clarification is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.253.121 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anarchist law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190906/https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity to https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
If anyone has additional sourcing on this topic, now would be the time to add it. "Anarchist law" appears to be a neologism. Surely plenty has been written on norms/laws in anarchist communities, relation to natural law, etc., but that would be better handled within an overview article such as anarchism unless the abstract topic has itself been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The current sourcing doesn't bear that out. It could make sense to re-scope the topic to anarchism and law, as it is the subject of some books, but the relationship appears to be too loose to warrant an encyclopedic article and unless it has distinct scope to cover, would read like an essay. Anarchism and natural law is another possibility. But in the absence of a scope proposal or valid sourcing, anarchism appears to be the best target for this search term. czar 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently well sourced, so we have finished after so much work. Vallee01 (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't think it's fair to say it's well sourced. It has some sources, yes, but several are unreliable (e.g., working papers are not suitable for an encyclopedia), several whole passages remain unsourced, and some citations are repeated rather than combined. czar  21:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)