Anarchism

I think you might find this text interesting. It offers a simple yet precise take on how authority should be viewed in anarchist spaces: No Rules, No Rulers

Here are some quite descriptive quotes:

[1]

The existence of rules can only be fully understood by exploring how rulers came to be. The introduction of private property is seen as a pivotal moment in the origin of rule. As a few individuals began to accumulate wealth under this new system, social hierarchies formed, and those at the top of this hierarchy appointed authority figures and armed them with a monopoly on violence to protect their property and enforce rules on their behalf. This wealthy minority accumulated increasing wealth by dividing the land among themselves before coercing those who once lived off the land freely into their servitude. They accomplished this by directing their governments to enact laws that criminalized living off the land without the landowner’s permission, effectively compelling everyone who did not own land to work for landowners in order to survive.

[2]

“Norms” necessitates “abnormality”. The existence of a “norm” logically creates a non-norm, or a deviation. The problem isn’t the deviation itself, but the negative connotation and social consequences associated with being labeled “abnormal.” The word “abnormal” is often pathologizing, othering, or stigmatizing.

[...]

The argument that rules can exist without rulers is as nonsensical as the idea of a court existing without a justice system. In the absence of a governing body, rules become mere suggestions, lacking any true power or authority, and thus cease to be rules. The practical reality is that any attempt to establish and maintain a system of rules will naturally lead to the formation of a body responsible for their creation and enforcement, thereby establishing a form of governance.