Rule of Wisdom
Most people assume that anarchy means a state of chaotic horror where individuals act without regard for anything but perhaps their own self-preservation. This is not the classical definition of anarchy. Rather, anarchy is the counter argument to legalism. Decisions should not be made on the basis of laws and legislation, but on the basis of personal wisdom. In this case wisdom is assumed to include common wisdom, traditions, and a concern for the wellbeing of others. Prosecuting criminals and determining what actions should be prohibited are based on consensus rather than some previously established law. Most families function as an anarchy. There is generally no set of written laws for family behavior, everyone knows what is acceptable based on tradition, and exceptions are granted when it seems appropriate. It is well argued, though some still disagree, that anarchy is inappropriate for larger societies. It may be necessary for a greater power to arbitrate for individuals who are unfamiliar with each other and are unable to resolve their own disputes peaceably. Perhaps the historical solution was for one individual or group of individuals to gain dominance and establish a kind of dictatorship.
Rule of the Elite
Of course when I talk about families being an example of anarchy, I am talking about extended families, members of the family that are relatively equal to each other. The relationship between a parent and child generally does not have that sense of relative equality, but is more of a dictatorial arrangement. A dictatorship is when one individual or a small group of individual assume control over the group, dictating what decisions are to be made, what is wrong, and what is right based on their own feelings and thoughts at any given moments. This may mean that what is right at one time for one person is wrong at another time for another person. There is, therefore, an obvious concern for justice. Those subject to the whims of the dictator may become discontent and demand reasons for the rulings of the dictator. Historically this may be manifest in the creation of laws.
Rule of Law
Instead of making decisions based on wisdom or some dictatorial decree, legalism makes decisions based on rational analysis of a body of law. The law is written before the incident and is, therefore, an attempt to predict to sorts of situations that will arise in the future. Lawmakers must divine what the society must protect itself from, and how the society can most effectively punish criminals as a means of either vengeance, deterrence, or retribution. This ensures that punishments are at the very least rational if not reasonable. If people find a judgment unreasonable then they can blame and attempt to overthrow that law, rather than overthrowing the dictator in a dictatorship, or fight the will of the mob in anarchy. Laws give the dictator or the mob something to point to and say “That is why you are getting punished” rather than stating “I am why you are getting punished”. Legalism seems to be the conclusion of the journey of social decision making, for it is, ideally, by rule of law that we live today.
Nothing in this world is perfect. All things change. Legalism often misses this point. Laws are passed to be perfect and to last forever. Yes they can be changed. Yes they can be overwritten. But they are too often passed with the hope or the belief that they will last forever. Reasonable people change their minds. New information arises daily. Situations change constantly. Modern legalism dismisses these facts at best, and vilifies them at worst. For a law maker to pass a law or support some action somehow means that if they ever change their mind they are either a fool or a hypocrite. This is utter nonsense.
One of the greatest arguments that an anarchist makes against legalism is that legalism is bound to become bloated. A law is passed. A reason is found why that law is unjust. An exception or amendment is added. The process repeats over and over. Eventually the laws are so complex that only professionals who spend all their time studying them really understand them. Even those individuals may not really understand them, many lawyers and politicians merely know how to manipulate laws finding loopholes for themselves and unexpected restrictions to use against their enemies. Furthermore because there is an attitude that the law is somehow eternal, these ever growing branches rarely get pruned. Generally more and more is added in an attempt to replace fluid wisdom with stone hard law. The anarchist would argue that this task is impossible, while a legalist would argue that the anarchist's solution is worse. Of course they both agree that the totalitarian is a real jerk.
Instead of viewing laws as permanent things that can only be added to, see them for what they are, a rule that the people consent to follow. As reasonable minds change, so too does consent change. What we believed was the best rule to follow before may not be the best rule to follow now, and when a circumstance arises where the rule does not seem to fit our consent to that rule may be suspended for that one judgment. A law of consent, unlike a contemporary law, can be revisited at any time, pruned freely as the reasonable minds of the legislature change, one can only hope.
A law of consent is not passed because we believe it is perfect, but merely because we believe it is good enough for right now. When a law is on the floor the question should not be for or against, the question should be will some important aspect of society fail if this law is passed as is. If a lawmaker believes that society will continue to function, for better or for worse, with the new law in place, then let it pass. If a lawmaker believes that some important aspect of society will collapse with the new law in place, then speak against it. Likewise, if some important function of society will collapse without a new law, then it is time to think about new laws. If society will continue to function as it is, there is no reason to pass a new law. The overall philosophy here is to keep laws simple and let the executors execute and the judges judge. Laws are only needed where the wisdom of the executors and judges are proven to be insufficient or where the power of the executors and judges has been proven to lead to corruption. To rely on the legislature to do more than that is to say that we cannot take responsibility for our actions, so we are trusting politicians and lawyers to take responsibility for our actions. I for one do not feel it is wise or appropriate to give up on my own responsibility and rely on the responsibility of politicians and lawyers to define how society is to function. Empower the actors to make their own decisions in so far as their own decisions do not lead to the destruction of others or society as a whole. Then rule of wisdom can coexist with rule of law.
A law of consent, not being seen as permanent or perfect, need not strive, as contemporary laws do, to be perfectly predictive. Instead a consent can be a quick solution to a present problem. Keeping decisions small and as simple as possible ensures that each law is not, in itself, overly complicated. Politicians constantly play games of packaging something for an interest group in with a law that is universally desirable, or packaging a negative clause into a law that they personally don't believe should be passed. Proposed laws should be small or easily parsed. In other words if there is consent to one piece of a cumbersome proposed law while the rest is controversial, then it should be unquestioned that the piece is parsed out and passed without the whole, this should be standard practice.
Dynamic Legalism is the name I give to the above concepts. It is the idea that the legal institution should be dynamic, able to quickly change directions as situations and beliefs change. It is the idea that law should only override wisdom when it is necessary for the protection of the people or the society as a whole. It is the idea that decisions should be small and quick, not cumbersome, and never attempting to replace wisdom with some perfect codified law. The authority of the individual is subject only to the wellbeing of others and society as a whole.
The business practice of Holocracy has been a major source of inspiration for these ideas. Holocracy is a well-developed practice with very similar opinions as he ones I have just stated. I encourage you to research Holocracy and consider the practices they describe. This does not mean that I consider myself a follower of Holocracy or that I consider my ideas to be an extension of Holocracy. I simply would like to encourage others to examine that system for themselves as it has my consent as an effective system of governance, at this point directed at business governance.