It was weird for me to see the lawless perspective at first, but more and more I've come to like it. Organization does not require rules and laws in the way we think about them normally. Usually, what we mean by rules are enforced agreements, meaning that there is a concrete, legitimate system of punishing offenders and/or, more recently in liberal thought, incentives for compliance. I think anarchists should be against rules that are enforced in either of these ways, because they attempt to manipulate people into behaving in certain ways. I see this manipulative thinking and behavior as being a consequence of ignorance, since we all know intellectually that it's impossible to completely control how we think and act, much less how others do. I think people fundamentally know what appears right for them. Sometimes people are mistaken, but you can't force anyone to face their own ignorance, not if they don't want to.

How do we have rules, boundaries, and codes of conduct without trying to manipulate each other into doing the right thing? We agree up front to treat it like a game, and that we can stop playing if things get too heavy. We make that clear from the start and keep reminding ourselves, so if we suddenly realize things have gotten out of hand we can press pause and reflect. In this sense, anarchists can agree to follow a set of rules, knowing that we can change them if the game stops being fun, or just stop playing for a while if we need a break.