Also, ostracism and exit. It’s what we do routinely anyway. We’re all ‘splitters’

transgressors have a clear incentive to leave. But they must share society with others first, and those others shape the transgressors lives in non-trivial ways. So transgression is a social failing too. If they want to stay it’s everyone’s responsibility. But they should also be allowed to leave

BlueSky does it thread well, so it’s getting really hard to follow this… sorry. Just to say, I’m not necessarily advocating any of this, only trying to correct misconceptions about anarchism. But personally, I wouldn’t want to keep anyone that didn’t want to stay in our group /1

Yes, this is true. The question then is whether a different set of social incentives (i.e., not racist, capitalist or mysoginistic ones), would make local sheriffs any better? Perhaps they’d be just as bad, but by different moral registers? But that would mean only bad apples become sheriffs…

See they've found that long lost Agatha Christie manuscriptSee they've found that long lost Agatha Christie manuscript

Tempting…

😂

And cities routinely enact laws that are particular to them, often by referendum, and not just city states.

Sure. Let’s say we need regulations for guttering (I spent a week as a 16 yo in arbitration courts where this was the case, and it put me right off law): a) scaling guttering law would make it meaningless (proof in testing), b) specialist knowledge of guttering is unnecessary: we have books for that

This too.