no rules no rulers
No Rules, No Rulers – A Response to the Idea That Anarchy is When We Have Rules But No Rulers (2025) ziq
via 11 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-no-rules-no-rulers]
notes/quotes:
3
Rules and Rulers
The often-repeated cliche that anarchy represents a society with rules but no rulers is a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchy. While on first look it may seem like a nuanced distinction, the claim that rules can exist without rulers is a contradiction in terms. This fallacy fails to recognize that the very nature of rules and laws implies an expectation of obedience, which in turn necessitates a mechanism for enforcement, making the presence of a ruling body, in other words, a government, wholly inevitable. There’s an inherent connection between rules and rulers that can’t simply be hand-waved away.
so too that freedom can exist with any form of m\a\p
The existence of rules can only be fully understood by exploring how rulers came to be. The introduction of private property is seen as a pivotal moment in the origin of rule. As a few individuals began to accumulate wealth under this new system, social hierarchies formed, and those at the top of this hierarchy appointed authority figures and armed them with a monopoly on violence to protect their property and enforce rules on their behalf. This wealthy minority accumulated increasing wealth by dividing the land among themselves before coercing those who once lived off the land freely into their servitude. They accomplished this by directing their governments to enact laws that criminalized living off the land without the landowner’s permission, effectively compelling everyone who did not own land to work for landowners in order to survive.
property ness et al
This shift marked the transition from decentralized, often nomadic communal living, where no one “owned” land or controlled other people, to structured societies with powerful rulers who enforce rigid rules on the population to maintain a class of exploitable workers, reinforce private property relations, and prevent rebellion no matter how deplorable the working conditions. Regardless of the ideology these rulers concocted for their governments, they would claim the people consented to being ruled by them through “social contracts.”
bauwens contracts law et al
Anarchists contend this “consent” is always coerced, with a potent mix of violence as well as propaganda delivered through the education system, the media, manufactured cultural norms and perhaps the biggest opiate of all: The electoral system. .t The constant threat of deprivation of freedom hangs in the air, creating an atmosphere of anxiety that compels compliance. People who refuse to conform to the system and suffered for it — prisoners, the homeless, drug addicts — are displayed publicly for all to see, as terrifying examples of what happens to those who challenge societal norms, .. t a lingering reminder of the consequences of dissent, reinforcing the threat that any heretic who won’t follow the rules will be cast out into the cold and left to die.
public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
The education system is designed by the ruling class to instill a fierce sense of loyalty to the state and acceptance of the status quo, where the state owns a big chunk of your labor and capital owns most of the rest. Through lesson plans that push contorted moral rules, obedience, meekness, nationalism, and the virtues of the state’s particular ideology, the lower classes are conditioned to view their subservience to rule as a natural part of life.
supposed to’s of school/work et al.. black science of people/whales law.. et al
all the classes
This childhood indoctrination is further reinforced later in life by media narratives that glorify authority, encourage submission to our “betters” and vilify dissent, creating a culture where questioning the legitimacy of our rulers and their long lists of suffocating rules is seen as conspiratorial, extreme or dangerous. Something to be weeded out of us by force.
In the modern era, the *illusion of choice is perpetuated through the political system, where citizens are presented with the facade of democracy. Regularly scheduled elections are framed as opportunities for the people to express their will and exercise their “freedom”, yet the only candidates who are allowed to realistically run for office are those who align with the interests of the ruling class. This creates a cycle where individuals are tricked into believing they have a stake in determining the trajectory of their lives, while in reality, their options are strictly constrained by the very structures that keep them subservient to the ruling class. **The mechanisms of control ensure that the ruling class’s interests are prioritized over the needs of their impoverished servants.
*nothing to date has gotten to root of problem
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
4
*This ideological conditioning instills a belief in us that without rules, chaos would ensue, making compliance seem like the only rational choice. .t Almost from birth, endless propaganda is flung at us from every direction to convince us we need rules to be safe, to maintain order, to protect our freedoms. **The propaganda in our times is so pervasive and the delivery systems so effective, that fewer and fewer people are able to envision what it means to live in a world without rule..t
*the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
**black science of people/whales law et al
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
The ruling class is quick to threaten legal penalties, social ostracism, or economic hardship for non-compliance. By highlighting the repercussions of breaking rules, they create a climate of fear that discourages dissent and encourages conformity. This fear is reinforced through media portrayals of crime, terrorism and disorder, which suggest that rules are vital for personal safety and societal well-being. Security theater is used to create the illusion of safety and control, often involving highly visible but superficial measures that distract from the underlying issues of inequality and injustice, while simultaneously justifying increased surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of protecting the public from rule-breakers..t
safety addiction et al
Social norms play a significant role in shaping behavior. The ruling class cultivates norms that promote obedience to rules, making compliance a socially accepted behavior and resistance to authority appear strange and deviant. Peer pressure can further reinforce this, as individuals may feel compelled to conform to the expectations of their social groups. The longing for acceptance and belonging compels individuals to adhere to rules, even when they harbor a deep aversion to them.
myth of normal et al
maté trump law et al
“Norms” necessitates “abnormality”. The existence of a “norm” logically creates a non-norm, or a deviation. The problem isn’t the deviation itself, but the negative connotation and social consequences associated with being labeled “abnormal.” The word “abnormal” is often pathologizing, othering, or stigmatizing.
Rules, by their very definition, are guidelines for behavior that carry an expectation of compliance..t Whether these are codified laws or more informal social norms, their efficacy depends on the consequences of non-compliance and the fear it generates. … It creates a system of coercive social control.
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
The argument that rules can exist without rulers is as nonsensical as the idea of a court existing without a justice system. In the absence of a governing body, rules become mere suggestions, lacking any true power or authority, and thus cease to be rules. The practical reality is that any attempt to establish and maintain a system of rules will naturally lead to the formation of a body responsible for their creation and enforcement, thereby establishing a form of governance.
5
The mis-characterization of anarchy as “rules without rulers” blurs the line between voluntary interaction, or anarchy, and coercive law, or archy. When people freely interact and consent to certain behaviors, they are not creating a system of rules in the governmental sense. They are establishing personal relationships and social agreements. This is a fundamental distinction: one is based on voluntary consent, while the other is based on enforced compliance. To confuse the two is to misunderstand the very foundation of anarchic principles.
so same song
The notion that anarchy is “rules without rulers” is a flawed premise that ignores the fundamental relationship between rules and the mechanisms of their enforcement. Any system that creates and enforces rules, regardless of its scale, is a form of governance. Anarchy, in all its forms, is not a system of rules but a system that rejects centralized power in favor of voluntary cooperation and individual autonomy. The very existence of rules implies a governing body, making the phrase “rules without rulers” an oxymoron that fundamentally misrepresents the core tenets of anarchism and ends up enabling authoritarian creep.
to me.. still missing it.. ie: ignores relationship between any form of m\a\p.. all the forms of their very existence.. et al
Understanding Personal Boundaries
Rules are established by external authorities to regulate behavior, serving as a framework for societal conduct. In contrast, personal boundaries define individual limits regarding how one wants to be treated, the types of relationships they wish to engage in, and the nature of those interactions. When these two concepts are conflated, it creates a culture where compliance with external dictates is prioritized over personal autonomy. This shift fosters coercive dynamics that compromise individual needs and emotional well-being, as people may feel pressured to conform to rules that do not align with their personal values or preferences.
6
This also applies to those who attempt to trivialize this matter by talking about board games and sports. Instructions for gameplay mechanics are obviously not rules for social relations and the existence of entertainment products shouldn’t stop us from applying a consistent anarchist critique to the system of rules and rulers.
In many anarchist spaces, individuals often attempt to establish rules to combat bigotry, such as racism, but rules can’t solve racism. This course of action overlooks the deep-seated beliefs and biases individuals hold, and simply imposing rules does not change these underlying attitudes. *Meaningful transformation requires a commitment to education, open dialogue, and a genuine understanding of the experiences of marginalized communities.
*oh my
The Rules-Based Order
7
Anarchists hold that if you choose to associate with others in a community, you do so because you agree to the terms of that association, and you have the right to leave if those terms no longer work for you. Anarchistic agreements between people are not dictatorial; they are the result of ongoing, fluid communication. They are optional and can be renegotiated and withdrawn from at any moment. In an anarchy, the interactions between individuals are not governed by a set of external rules but by a continuous process of negotiation and consent. This is in stark contrast to a rule-based society, where rules are imposed on individuals without their direct, ongoing consent.
hmm.. i see them more the same.. and i think legit free people would see both as irrelevant s
For anarchists, the idea of a “rules-based order” is a contradiction in terms. It’s a system that, while claiming to provide social harmony, does so by destroying freedom. Actual social harmony emerges organically from free people making voluntary agreements. It is a dynamic, evolving process, not a rigid, static structure imposed from above. It is a social arrangement based on consent, not on coercion.
yeah.. i think legit free people wouldn’t have time for making agreements ness..
So-Called “Natural Law”
Natural law is the idea that there are universally binding moral rules that are believed by some to be inherent in human nature, or are derived from a divine source. These rules supposedly dictate human behavior and let us know right from wrong. This idea of moral rules baked into our DNA is highly dubious because it fundamentally relies on a hierarchical external authority, whether that be a divine being, mother nature or some other cosmic force. It assumes faith in a greater power which we must all submit to, and in reality descends from highly arbitrary cultural factors, most often Christian conservative cultural values.
Far right personalities over the years from Murray Rothbard to Ayn Rand to Adolf Hitler prized natural law and used it to justify their ideological positions. Hitler’s ideology was heavily influenced by a belief in the superiority of the Aryan race. He argued that this superiority came from natural law, suggesting that the Aryan race was inherently designed by nature to dominate others. This concept of natural law was used to rationalize the subjugation and extermination of those his government deemed “inferior”. By framing their actions as aligned with natural law, the Nazis worked to legitimize their genocidal policies.
Iain Mckay, from The Myth of “Natural Law”:
[Natural law] gives them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogma and prejudices to some metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticize it, or even think about it. It smacks of religion, where “Natural Law” has replaced God’s Law. In the latter case, it gives the priest power over the believers. In the later, the ideologist over the people he or she wants to rule.
How can you be against a “Natural Law”? Its impossible. How can you argue against Gravity? If private property, for example, is elevated to such a level, who dare argue against it? Ayn Rand listed having landlords and employers with “the laws of nature”. They are not similar: the first two are social relationships which have to be enforced by the state; the “laws of nature” (like gravity, needing food, etc) are facts which do not need to be enforced. The use of “Natural Law” is an attempt to stop thinking, to restrict analysis, to force certain aspects of society off of the political agenda by giving them a divine, everlasting quality
8
The modern secular humanist conception of natural law parts with the need for divine authority, but maintains the fixed, external moral code that is used to justify hierarchy. Instead of God or a king, the new sovereign becomes “human nature” as interpreted, of course, by the ruling class.
Anarchy insists on the absolute freedom and autonomy of the individual. The natural law conception flies in the face of this freedom by asserting that there are pre-determined moral boundaries that cannot be crossed. It tells people what they “ought” to do and orders them to ignore their own self-will and their own ethical code in order to serve an externally-imposed set of moral rules. *If harming those who oppress us is always morally wrong, as the manufacturers of natural law would of course insist, how will we ever free ourselves from the clutches of oppression?
*oh my.. well not by harming others.. oooof.. there’s a nother way.. because it has to be for all for the dance to dance..
9
Anarchists believe we should be free to make our own choices, to design our own values, to set our own inhibitions. This process is dynamic and decentralized, in direct opposition to the static, top-down nature of natural law.
not free/opposite.. ie: the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us.. et al
It would be ill-advised for anarchists to believe that we’re all governed by an intrinsic, pre-existing, non-negotiable moral code. An otherworldly entity guiding all our actions and interactions. The moment you accept that a “natural” rule exists, you’re accepting a power structure designed by someone else out of their own self-interest. This imaginary divine “lawgiver” that imposes its will on humanity is an obvious form of domination and best left to the devout candle worshipers among us.
Lazy Teachers Make Lazy Students
Teaching new people that anarchy is simply a different set of rules that supposedly protects them from harm is the worst possible way to communicate our principles. It leads these baby anarchists to internalize the concept of authority, assuming that it can exist harmoniously with an anarchist worldview.
teaching people anything.. is a form of people telling other people what to do
This is a fundamental contradiction. Anarchy, at its core, is the rejection of all authority: That no one has the right to rule over another, and that all interactions should be based on free and voluntary association.
When newcomers are told, “Here are the rules of this anarchist space,” they are being taught that authority is a necessary component of social organization, even in a supposedly anti-authoritarian environment. This deeply flawed messaging can take years, if not a lifetime, for them to unlearn. Many will never avail themselves of these misunderstandings. They’ll go on to call themselves anarchists while practicing various forms of rulership and informing hundreds of other people they come into contact with that anarchy has rules which must be followed or else.
11
*A genuine anarchist education program would focus on fostering an environment that encourages students to cultivate critical thinking skills rooted in their own values. Rather than imposing rigid rules or doctrines, the program would empower learners to explore and articulate their ideas, promoting a sense of autonomy and self-direction. Students would be encouraged to apply these critical thinking skills **to various anarchistic projects, engaging in collaborative discussions and hands-on activities that reflect their interests and ideals. This approach not only nurtures individual growth but also fosters a sense of connection and shared purpose, allowing students to envision and create alternatives to traditional structures of authority. This would encourage newcomers to question everything, including the idea of imposed rules.
*oh my.. to be legit free we need to try no prep.. no train
**ie’s of people telling other people what to do.. ooof
By teaching students of anarchy to internalize authority, even in a subtle way, we betray the very spirit of anarchy. We teach them to be docile followers of rules rather than creators of vigorous anarchy. We strangle any potential baby anarchists have in the cradle before it can flourish.
any teaching.. turns us into docile followers
Ultimately, the path to making anarchy is not paved with rules, entryism, lies, punishment and cult tactics, but with brutal, unapologetic honesty. To teach new people that they must accept a group’s rules and conform to their demands in order to do anarchy is to sell them a false promise and to perpetuate the very systems of control we are trying to dismantle.
______
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
be you. 