This article was posted shortly before the election but everything in there is still true and seeing his appointees perhaps worse than predicted.
This article was posted shortly before the election but everything in there is still true and seeing his appointees perhaps worse than predicted.
By avoiding hierarchy. So it’s like how a poker game has a bunch of players, but nobody is the boss of poker. And if somebody starts cheating, you either expel them or form a new group.
The hard part is scaling this up to billions of people.
So as long as an organization is truly democratic, it can be considered anarchist?
For example, if one person likes to make coca cola but as a side effect he pollutes a river that the rest of the group wants to keep clean. The group may decide democratically to force him to not make coca cola. I would call this a goverment-like organization, even though it does not need to have a leader to fulfill its goal.
I would consider that anarchist iff it’s not hierarchical, yes.