Anarchists are against priori rules because each rule is always the formal consecration of a relationship of power and, therefore, in itself unjust? Beyond the fact that the anarchists were opposed to all forms and state laws that inform it, in their daily practice themselves are able to organize themselves by deploying shared rules that are accepted and respected and in relations with the outside world in which they interact (community centers, committees, coordination etc) looking the other rules of living together, are willing to accept those rules and under what conditions? Law has the same meaning for anarchists and that what they mean by "justice" in relation to the relationships that bind them to the outside not institutionalized world?
For anarchists, anarchist ideas and better for more established, "justice" is not a concept a priori. Instead, an intuition of the intellect understood as the onset of a feeling, as the result of life experience or as the result of a rational path to knowledge.
While the principles of liberty, equality, respect for diversity, pluralism and solidarity shared by anarchists allow them to grasp the meaning of justice itself, is the practical application of these principles in the real world that allows them in a specific context of space - time to have knowledge and awareness of the concept of justice, not in its metaphysical dimension, but the empirical manifestations of human related and mediated, and therefore imperfect.
This route of internalization of the concept of justice has never spiritual and metaphysical as the legal philosophy of the anarchists is not intended to give effect to an ultimate goal and all, but a project as widely shared and, therefore, actually be achieved by units of energy and intent of the law where the function is to devise rules to which you can actually bring the human actions.
Law and rights
All anarchists thinkers, in particular Proudhon held separate the notions of law and right where the first event is a mere exercise of force exclusively monopolized by the state, while the latter covers all forms of regulation, mediation and relations management, and conflicts of interests that occupy the human affairs.
The radical critique of the anarchists to the laws of the state and its justice - understood as a manifestation of the absolute power of the entity that is, from time to time be defined as capable of exerting the force that dictates the limits of freedom, equality and respect for diversity - can not automatically invest the concept of "right" itself.
Beyond a utopian vision of a just society inspired by anarchist principles, it is a fact that more and more anarchists, anarcho -syndicalists and libertarian in general put in place legal instruments to regulate the activity capable of self-organization and coexistence and internal relations with the outside world also institutional.
In its associative context, anarchists organize themselves by adopting rules for the most part based on a bond of mutual solidarity in the pursuit of a common project to the constitution of which all involved through a process of constant comparison to the collective sharing of forms and selected content (eg acts of incorporation and statutes).
The validity of these rules constitute a reality, organized in a libertarian way that dictates the rules of individual behavior and collective action. Never absolute for members not being bound metaphysically a priori and indeed imperative to the rules governing the mutual relations between them are accepted and shared as long as they remain consistent with the principles and values that inspired them and continues to meet the real external conditions which justified the adoption.
The principle pacta sunt servanda is not a dogma even for those anarchists who would tell his or her political philosophy and legal theory to natural law.
On the contrary, within the anarchist movement there is a pragmatic libertarian against their rules not ideological, but a manifestation of common sense and the legal instruments to the reality of things changing.
Justice, mutual respect and shared ideas
The result of this pragmatic approach of the anarchists is that the rules - even those who base pactional reciprocal relationships - are shared with the knowledge that they do not have absolute validity but related, are not sacred in themselves and are therefore always interpreted, modified and deleted . What is sacred is rather the commitment of each member which is, however, maintained as long as the subjective and objective conditions that had caused and still continue, then, to justify it.
For anarchists the personal integrity is not a cold, insensitive and eternal monolith. Indeed, the personal integrity and daily practice, the experience forged in the ethics of his own being in relation to others and therefore should be assessed in the context of external reality and the complexity of human relationships.
The agreements should therefore be respected, but not because they are faced with a priori and uncritically, but because they still contain within them the benefit of objective and subjective reasons the individual as part of a greater collective well-being that had justified the adoption.
This approach to its regulatory universe is entirely consistent with the common idea of justice that anarchists feel as his own and inspired by the behavior of themselves and their ability to self-organization: a justice of the relationships between members that is based on mutual respect and commonality of ideas and that, for this reason, it is also capable of adapting the tools of living together to change the reality of things.
The idea of justice is never the same, however, with the idea of truth: every anarchist makes appeal to what is known empirically and rationally, and that is consistent with the principles and values to which it refers in its conduct, but should never outsource apodictically absolute truths and, instead, communicate respect for pluralism of ideas in their empirical knowledge (so-called ethics of experience).
It is undisputed that the anarchist like any other human being in good faith believed to be true what they preach and practice, but it should do so in the knowledge that the empirical knowledge is inherently imperfect, even if ordered in the most consistent in their universe with reason and conscience in accordance with principles and values that must be asserting in his life through experience and not dogmatic adherence to dogma.
Practical value of rules
The rules therefore have a practical value for anarchists that has nothing to do with natural law theories and even less with those dictated by metaphysical ideologies of truth and absolute justice.
Consequently, as stated above, the right of the anarchists is mere right place or what is called "positive law" as opposed to "natural law" because it is the only one who is actually through the meeting of minds, the discussion on content and the sharing of heads.
That of the anarchists is not only treaty law, valid between the parties involved in the preparation of standards-ruling, but also adherence to what is held by others, provided that subsequently shared, or participation in the critical review of the first established itself or others.
The politic-legal-ethical discussion of the anarchists on the rules that govern their internal coexistence and relations with the outside world at their adjacent, is never a criticism on the level of philosophical and political logic - such as occurs in critical state and its laws held over from the only institutions authorized exclusive of force - but is expressed on a technical reason, when viewed objectively and subjectively psychological.
In other words, the objective of the anarchists in their discussion of political-legal (and in this sense, this seems to be a practice also adopted by the Zapatista movement to reach decisions more widely shared) coincides with the instrument of dialogue and spread of constant comparison and sometimes exhausting, where the views of the opponent or critic is not claimed through the balance of power but through the adoption of the rhetorical devices of argumentation-persuasion.
Rhetoric and dialogue as a means of understanding
These tools are offered by the personal and empirical knowledge, objective use of scientific knowledge, the techniques of persuasion accompanied by purely psychological and personal reasons etc. The goal is to reach an agreement, or a new agreement, a better agreement, but also an agreement more practical, more useful, more advantageous to themselves and others and, ultimately, more just and pragmatic and utilitarian terms certainly not in terms of their natural law theories.
What we anarchists seeking permanent in this dialectic is not the absolute truth, but the regulation of mutual relations and interests considered more appropriate as most closely matches the appearance of truth and therefore better suited to the objective reality of things and the subjective determination of people.
The ethics of dialogue adopted by anarchists commonly refers to the technique of persuasion used by Greek rhetoric that has nothing to do with the derogatory term today.
Like the ancient rhetoricians, anarchists - some more and some less - seek through word and example the consent of a dialogue with them, theirs is a rational argument but also passionate and, therefore, able to affect much on the minds what about the feelings of the interlocutor.
The rhetoric of anarchists, not to be inconclusive, but must also contain a practical perspective and not just theoretical solutions that can fit all and therefore subject to personal choice and collective decision.
What also characterize the classical rhetoric from that adopted by anarchists is that the latter within the realm of ethical conduct since it must be exercised in accordance with good personal faith and the apparent truth of things - it insists - is not absolute and ideological truth but precisely because it is derived from his empirical knowledge of things is imperfect and always subject to revision.
Conclusions
Anarchists do not have a theory of justice, much less idealistic law.
The right, unlike law, which is a manifestation of the exclusive use of force by the state, is intended by the anarchists as a technique of social organization of more subjects, adjustment of common and mutual interest and administration of the inevitable internal and external conflict and, therefore, is neutral.
The purpose of the right is for anarchists, therefore, the research of the treaty achieved only through dialogue aimed at mutual consent, the contents of that agreement must be eminently practical, never ends in themselves and which, instead, organize and enhance individual and collective energies.
In this sense, the legal activities of the anarchists objective is the part of individuals in relation to the welfare of all concrete and feasible in accordance with the principles and values of anarchist culture.
In view of the above right is for anarchists eminently positive right because it is the result of the free meeting will be changed forever and ever aware of values and principles that transcend them.
The legal policy of the Anarchists, therefore, is finding a balance always dynamic and never static because institutional diversity among conflicting interests among complex problems difficult to understand, articulation and coordination between individual freedom and space limits dictated by the requirements of community as a whole, in a perpetual tension between liberty and equality, including equality and respect for diversity, pluralism and solidarity between and so on.
anno
40 n. 357
Sergio Onesti