Lawful Anarchists

[Renrik]

Are they possible? It really all depends on if lawful is considered an acceptance of current social mores and power structures, or if it is the following of a specific code of behavior, such as anti-hierarchical nonaggression. Your thoughts?

[hamishspence]

Lawful guys don't have to follow the laws of society- if they are strongly against their moral beliefs.

A Lawful Good guy in a very Lawful Evil society might actively fight the system because of its evilness.

[Eurus]

It's possible if you say it is, really. Law and Chaos just aren't well-defined enough to say much about them -- half of the definitions for the two aren't even mutually exclusive.

[Siegel]

that reminds me of the Warhammer Chaos god of atheism

[Seffbasilisk]

When you try to define it, you're deviating from Chaos.

When you have to use vague terms in defining it, you're deviating from Law.

[Hardcore]

Anarchy is about self government by the people. An anarchist would obey laws he felt were written under a system he approved of.
Look it up on Wiki!

[Riffington]

A Lawful anarchist still lives in a specific place with specific rules/traditions/etc. There are a few he may feel compelled to break (he may for instance have to falsify census forms or avoid paying taxes for ethical reasons) but he's still going to be an organized person/follow most rules/be reliable. You can have all the theoretical arguments you want about why stoplights should behave differently in your ideal state, but if you're lawful you're still going to obey the stoplights as they exist.

[urbanpirate]

A Lawful anarchist still lives in a specific place with specific rules/traditions/etc. There are a few he may feel compelled to break (he may for instance have to falsify census forms or avoid paying taxes for ethical reasons) but he's still going to be an organized person/follow most rules/be reliable. You can have all the theoretical arguments you want about why stoplights should behave differently in your ideal state, but if you're lawful you're still going to obey the stoplights as they exist.

not true. take the lawful evil example of the mob boss who always plays by the rules, the mobs rules. he anwsers to his own strictly defined code of honor. the folks from black block would be the same way. even Dr king could pretty accurately be defined as lawful in dungeons and dragons terms as he led the marches (often illegaly) due to his belief in a higher ( and therefore more legitimate) code of honor and conduct.

[aivanther]

Look it up on Wiki!

Because if you found it on wikipedia, it must be true...

Really, an anarchist doesn't rebel against the system, the rebel against all systems. Hardcore seems to be confusing anarchists with libertarians.

[Riffington]

not true. take the lawful evil example of the mob boss who always plays by the rules, the mobs rules. he anwsers to his own strictly defined code of honor. the folks from black block would be the same way. even Dr king could pretty accurately be defined as lawful in dungeons and dragons terms as he led the marches (often illegaly) due to his belief in a higher ( and therefore more legitimate) code of honor and conduct.

I'm not sure that's different from what I said.
The Lawful mob boss (these are rare) ignores the rules he has to (don't steal) but he's still going to tell the truth and stay faithful to his wife and show up to appointments on time etc.

Dr King led marches because there was a super important reason. He followed the law when there wasn't something extremely important at stake.

[Lord Vukodlak]

"An unjust law is no law at all"
—St Augustine

I also recall from an NPC mod for an old game Baldur's Gate II.

You can ask a paladin what if good conflicts with the law, she replies"
"There can be no conflict, for good is greater then any law"

It is important to remember that the two sides of someones alignment law vs chaos and good vs evil do not exist independently.

A lawful good person wouldn't believe in an unjust law and is still perfectly lawful for breaking them. Because its not lawful and good, its LAWFUL GOOD.
A character has one alignment not two.

[trmptfnfr]

It seems to me that someone who actively believes in Anarchy, rather than just disliking authority, would have some lawful traits.

Now I doubt they'd outnumber their chaotic traits, but I could accept a neutral Anarchist.

[oxybe]

i think i remember reading something on "anarchists".

a guy was walking down the street and he meets a young punk spouting stuff about pro-anarchy. guy asks the teen if he honestly believes in a system where anarchy prevails.

teen says yes and that the current government (i don't remember which one it was) should be brought down. guy slaps the teen in the face, puts the kid in an armlock while the kid's still in shock and takes the teen's wallet with his free hand. guy then asks if he (the teen) liked that. teen of course says no and asks for his wallet back. guy laughs, throws the wallet to the teen and says he's not ready for a system based off "anarchy".

[Lord Vukodlak]

i think i remember reading something on "anarchists".

a guy was walking down the street and he meets a young punk spouting stuff about pro-anarchy. guy asks the teen if he honestly believes in a system where anarchy prevails.

teen says yes and that the current government (i don't remember which one it was) should be brought down. guy slaps the teen in the face, puts the kid in an armlock while the kid's still in shock and takes the teen's wallet with his free hand. guy then asks if he (the teen) liked that. teen of course says no and asks for his wallet back. guy laughs, throws the wallet to the teen and says he's not ready for a system based off "anarchy".

Which actually demonstrates what anarchy boils down to, without a governing enforcing body everyone would simply do what they wished, and while some would be nice about it. Others would be a jackass.

If humanity ever evolves socially to the point where anarchy could work, it also have evolved to the point where the problems in government no longer exist rendering anarchy unnecessary.

[Riffington]

There will always be governing and enforcing bodies. The jerk in this story had the incorrect belief that such bodies must always be subject to a centralized State, and that without that State we would have spontaneous assault and violence. But this is silly. People can enforce order and property on a much more local level.

[Lord Vukodlak]

There will always be governing and enforcing bodies. The jerk in this story had the incorrect belief that such bodies must always be subject to a centralized State, and that without that State we would have spontaneous assault and violence. But this is silly. People can enforce order and property on a much more local level.

The jerks point is the same as yours, there will always be an enforcing body, by beating up the kid and taking his wallet he was acting as an enforcing body, and like you say people can enforce order and property on a local level, but that is still governing body.

[Iku Rex]

"Anarchist" can mean a lot of things, but as far as anarcho-capitalists go, sure. They can lawful.

I'd elaborate, but the laws of this forum do not allow political discussions.

[lsfreak]

The jerks point is the same as yours, there will always be an enforcing body, by beating up the kid and taking his wallet he was acting as an enforcing body, and like you say people can enforce order and property on a local level, but that is still governing body.

'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

[hamishspence]

It does, however, fit the dictionary definition of "anarchy" as a state of absolute breakdown of law and order.

Which is not quite the same thing.

[trmptfnfr]

'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

It doesn't seem to fit the definition of Anarchy if there are enforced laws and a governing body.
Maybe that's just me though.

[Riffington]

The jerks point is the same as yours, there will always be an enforcing body, by beating up the kid and taking his wallet he was acting as an enforcing body, and like you say people can enforce order and property on a local level, but that is still governing body.

Not quite. He'd have to be claiming that in the absence of a centralized authority, jerks like him would be able to beat up and rob defenseless kids. Yet there *was* a centralized authority in power in the location he beat up and robbed the kid. His much-loved State did absolutely nothing to stop that violence.

[oxybe]

There will always be governing and enforcing bodies. The jerk in this story had the incorrect belief that such bodies must always be subject to a centralized State, and that without that State we would have spontaneous assault and violence. But this is silly. People can enforce order and property on a much more local level.

the jerk had the right idea though. in a real state of anarchy, everyone will enforce the laws they want to enforce. it will be completely lawless at the start, but eventually like-minded people will group together, but in a "real" anarchy they won't have a body of law, at best an unwritten code and a gentleman's agreement.

this could mean problems when Jack from North Thunderdomesburg comes visiting his sister Jill from Totalitown.

the main issue is even though you're enforcing order on a local level, there's nothing really protecting you but yourself. if you can't defend yourself, tough noogies; it's entirely within North Thunderdomesburg's right to roll into Totalitown and take all their stuff if they're unable to defend themselves since it's a state of anarchy: you don't have any rights other then those you're willing and able to enforce.

[mucat]

As a good friend of mine likes to put it, "an anarchist has got to have intense self-discipline, since they won't accept it from anyone else." You can flatly reject the idea that one person can have legitimate authority over another, and still live by a rigid set of personal rules and ideals.

Would such a person be considered Lawful by D&D standards? I would say so, though someone with equally strong self-enforced code, who also accepted outside authority of some sort, would be even further along the Lawful axis.

By the way, it seems that a lot of the posts here are veering away from the original question, "Can an anarchist be Lawfully aligned?", into the question "Is anarchy a viable system?" I'm not even trying to answer the second question (which contains way too much real-world politics), just the first.

[Lord Vukodlak]

'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

Not according to the definition of anarchy.

[TheMadLinguist]

Not according to the definition of anarchy.

You expect anarchists to agree on a common definition?

[Riffington]

the jerk had the right idea though. in a real state of anarchy, everyone will enforce the laws they want to enforce. it will be completely lawless at the start, but eventually like-minded people will group together, but in a "real" anarchy they won't have a body of law, at best an unwritten code and a gentleman's agreement.

this could mean problems when Jack from North Thunderdomesburg comes visiting his sister Jill from Totalitown.

the main issue is even though you're enforcing order on a local level, there's nothing really protecting you but yourself. if you can't defend yourself, tough noogies; it's entirely within North Thunderdomesburg's right to roll into Totalitown and take all their stuff if they're unable to defend themselves since it's a state of anarchy: you don't have any rights other then those you're willing and able to enforce.

How is that different from a non-anarchist system?

[Mastikator]

Believe it or not, but most who call themselves anarchists aren't individualist, neither psychologically or philosophically.

And no anarchist wants a chaotic society. Most anarchists believe that rulers and rulership leads to chaos, not order. So, really. Anarchy is a lawful philosophy.
Though it's not "central authority" type lawfulness.

[Renrik]

Maybe we should lay down the definition of anarchism. I hope I'm not breaking the forum rules on politics, I'm just trying to explain the anarchist ideology without referencing too much contemporary political events.

Anarchism is an anti-State, historically anti-Capitalist idea based on the end of hierarchical society, and the creation of a society without a hierarchical monopoly of violence (the State) and without social classes. Anarchists historically range from individualists (Mutualists such as Prodhoun and Warren and naturalists like Thoreau) to social anarchists (the historically more active movement, consisting of anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists, such as Bakunin, Goldman, and Kropotkin).

Anarchists were originally allied with Communists until the split in the First International over the use of the State as a tool to empower the Working Class into the creation of classless society. In recent decades, two new trends have emerged. the Anarcho-Capitalists, who most anarchists do not consider anarchists, believe in no monopoly of violence but support classical liberal property rights, which most anarchists oppose in favor of communitarian or possession-and-use property rights. Anarcho-Primitivists grew out of Green Anarchism and believe that all civilization, defined by the subjugation of other species through the system of technology, breeds a hierarchical mass society through the division of labor, and this should be opposed by returning to a tribal society.

Traditional anarchists (social anarchists and pre-AnCap individual anarchists) view the State as a hierarchical monopoly on violence used as an instrument of class rule. Anarchist alternatives tend towards federations of non-hierarchical municipalities or a polycentric customary common law, based on the nonaggression principle- thus, the example of the man taking from the anarchist kid would be opposed by anarchists because it is an aggressive act that violates the person's freedom. Anarchists are not in favor of absolute freedom, they're in favor of equality, and the absence of hierarchy. Anarchists tend to believe a society should be very organized and peaceful, and that monopolistic force, social inequality, exploitation, and alienation produce the majority of social problems.

Major Anarchist Tendencies:
Economic:
Communist- Believe in federations of democratic worker's communes, where workers in an area cooperate. From each according to ability, to each according to need.
Syndicalist- Believe in federations of democratic worker's syndicates, where workers of a single trade make a big union.
Collectivist- Believe in federations of collectives, where returns are decided by labor contributed.
Mutualist- Believe in a market, but with mutual credit instead of money and rights to productive capital based on possession and use.
Capitalist- Believe in capitalism, sans State.

Other:
Anarcha-feminism: Critiques the anarchist movement from a feminist standpoint, emphasizes an opposition to all forms of hierarchy, beyond the State and Capital.
Eco-Anarchism: May be any form of anarchism, usually a communitarian one, that critiques mass society and advocates eco-villages and municipalities.
Anarcho-Primitivism: Anti-civilization.

[Emmerask]

'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

No anarchy is against every type of hierarchy because it subdues personal freedom.
The Greek word from which it came even means without rule (government).
And those who call themselves anarchists but in fact want a different kind of government are not anarchists. I can call myself superman all day long that does not mean I become superman.

[Harperfan7]

{scrubbed}