Anarchist society is usually thought of as a system of voluntary association, sometimes also called “voting with your feet”. Thus there might be communities that decide by consensus that the provision of food is conditional, but unless it is a mild condition like “you have to help preparing the food” many people would probably find it unethical and move somewhere else (or split up the community to change the rules).
So if I’m understanding this correctly, if the majority of people in a certain anarchist society decided to deprive certain people of food, the onus would be on the individual(s) deprived of food to leave their home(s) and current lifestyle(s) if they don’t like being deprived of food?
Anarchist society is usually thought of as a system of voluntary association, sometimes also called “voting with your feet”. Thus there might be communities that decide by consensus that the provision of food is conditional, but unless it is a mild condition like “you have to help preparing the food” many people would probably find it unethical and move somewhere else (or split up the community to change the rules).
So if I’m understanding this correctly, if the majority of people in a certain anarchist society decided to deprive certain people of food, the onus would be on the individual(s) deprived of food to leave their home(s) and current lifestyle(s) if they don’t like being deprived of food?
No, that would be the dictatorship of the 51%, a concept strongly opposed by nearly all anarchists.
You seem to be not aware of what “consensus” means.
Sorry, but I am happy to discuss this with you after you read up on some fundamentals (or stop being contrarian on purpose).
That sounds like a hoppeanism (ancap) philosophy https://polcompball.miraheze.org/wiki/Hoppeanism