Re: the rules essay -

Again, you neatly assembled a whole bunch of things I've been saying piecemeal and often unsatisfyingly for years, and I find myself equal parts pleased and jealous...

Rules without a mechanism of enforcement are not rules - they're merely suggestions. And any mechanism of enforcement is an archy.

Have you read Ursula le Guin's The Dispossessed? She neatly makes that exact point (and it amazes me how many self-proclaimed anarchists miss it) - the "anarchism" depicted there is nothing of the sort. It's overtly a hierarchy with established laws the violation of which is punished by designated people invested with the required authority. That it all hides behind anarchistic rhetoric makes that no less a fact.

On another note - one of my pet peeves is when newcomers show up on an anarchist forum and ask "How would X work in anarchism?" and then somebody launches into a detailed account of all of the specific procedures that would purportedly be followed.

I sometimes respond to try to make the point that nobody knows how anything would be done and that's part of the beauty of anarchism, but I find that generally confuses people, angers them, or both.

But it really is.

To me, one of the most appealing things about anarchism is that nobody can possibly know in advance how anything will be done, because whoever's involved will have to reach an agreement right there on the spot as to how to do it. But we can know that it will be done in the way that is best for all concerned, simply because nobody will have the authority to force anyone else to settle for anything less. What more could I want?

And you touch on a thing I refer to as "authoritarian reflexes" - the tendency, as with newcomers to anarchism, to just unconsciously assume laws and authority, even when they're nominally considering anarchism.

And your rant on natural law reminded me of another of my pet peeves - the NAP. I have no particular problem with it in and of itself, as a standard against which to measure ones own actions, but that's not the way it's generally treated by its devotees. They almost invariably use it as a direct substitute for a system of laws, and so vividly that one could almost see them pulling out their trusty sidearm and shouting, "Halt! You've violated the NAP!

And so on... there's so much there, and it's so rare to run into somebody who already understands the things I see...