What do you think?
How to Be a Citizen: Learning to Be Civil Without the State
An expert on the writing of constitutions argues that the path to a thriving society begins with forgetting about them The oldest question in political philosophy is What is the best way to organize society? The question used to occupy legal scholar C. L. Skach, too, whose answer was found in crafting good constitutions, until her participation in helping to do so, including in Iraq in 2009, led her to step back from law as the answer. As she argues instead in How to Be a Citizen, the good life in society shouldn’t come as an imposition through law but should instead emerge from bottom-up interaction. Skach lays out six principles—informed by everything from civil wars to civil rights struggles, from the responsibilities of bystanders to mutual aid in the pandemic—to help us build small societies of our, and our neighbors’, making. The lessons are sometimes deceptively share your tomatoes from your garden, cultivate and spend time in unstructured social spaces, teach children to negotiate their social interactions, rather than prescribe such interactions for them. But the aggregate makes clear that many small steps, in concert, can lead to beautiful things, all without the law. Equal parts personal and philosophical, and unfailingly wise, How to Be a Citizen invites us to see society not as something imposed by law but rather something we create together.
272 pages, Hardcover
Published July 2, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 9, 2026
No most törvények azért vannak, mert az emberben van hajlam a rosszra. Egy szabályok nélküli világ esetleg azokat hozná helyzetbe, akik a legkevesebb gátlással bírnak, és leginkább hajlamosak agresszíven fellépni és erőt alkalmazni. Innen nézve a törvények szövedéke védi az egyént a többi egyéntől. Ugyanakkor nem csak ezt teszi - hanem az államot, illetve a kivételezett elitet is védi az egyéntől. Mindez pedig nagy csábítás az államnak, hogy a szabályokat a maga képére szabja. Másfelől a törvények szövedéke elkényelmesít minket. Azt gondoljuk, ha szilárd törvények uralkodnak felettünk, akkor azok elégségesek, és ez mentesít minket a társadalmi felelősségvállalás alól. Minek álljunk ki embertársaink mellett, ha egyszer ott van az állam, aminek amúgy is az a feladata, hogy ne hagyjon senkit az út szélén? Csakhogy ha túlzottan ráhagyatkozunk az állami szabályrendszerekre, akkor azok idővel kiüresednek - pont az veszik ki belőlük, ami értelmet ad nekik: a polgárok közös akarata. Igazából ez Skach mondandójának a veleje: hogy muszáj felébresztenünk magunkban a társas lényt, aki aktív szereplője a közösségnek, aki nem pusztán tégla a társadalom építményében, hanem felelős döntéseivel alakítja is azt. Ilyen emberek nélkül a legszilárdabb alkotmány is csak egy halom betű. Ez pedig egy olyan üzenet, ami méltó arra, hogy foglalkozzanak vele.
Gondom csak kettő van:
1.) Skach kicsit bőbeszédű. Úgy értem, már a fejezetcímekből is elég jó százalékkal kisakkozható, mire akar kilyukadni a szerző, ehhez képest 20-30 oldal fejtegetés pöttyet sok. Értem, hogy a sok személyes történet és példa a kötődés kialakítását segítené elő az olvasó és a téma között, de én helyenként untam.
2.) Hadd adjam most át a szót a szkeptikus énemnek. Szóval az van, hogy szerintem minden olyan politikai elmélet, ami túlzott aktivitást vár el a plebstől, némiképp az ideák világához tartozik. Úgy értem, az ember úgy általában annyit vár a politikumtól, hogy hagyja békén. És ez egy respektálható igény - én is leginkább azt szeretném, hogy olvasgathassak, lóghassak a gyerekeimmel, és eszembe se jusson közben a polgári törvénykönyv vagy hogy milyen párt is van hatalmon. Nyilván vannak helyzetek, amikor a társadalmi aktivitás valamilyen szinten morális kérdés, ilyenkor valóban elvárható, hogy tiltakozzak, illetve keressem az együttműködést a hozzám hasonló elégedetlenekkel. De amikor Skach azt javasolja, hogy termesszek paradicsomot, mert ezzel is csökkentem a hatalomnak való kitettségemet, nos, az már kicsit sok. Elméletben egyetértek, de basszus, rohadtul nem szeretek kapálni, bocs. Tudom, milyen az - nem jó. Teljesen egyetértek azzal, hogy a kisközösségek megteremtése a kulcsa a jól működő demokráciának, de valahogy az arany középutat kéne megtalálni aközött, amit Skach szerint el kéne végezni, és amit hajlandó is vagyok (hajlandóak is vagyunk) elvégezni.
Gondom csak kettő van:
1.) Skach kicsit bőbeszédű. Úgy értem, már a fejezetcímekből is elég jó százalékkal kisakkozható, mire akar kilyukadni a szerző, ehhez képest 20-30 oldal fejtegetés pöttyet sok. Értem, hogy a sok személyes történet és példa a kötődés kialakítását segítené elő az olvasó és a téma között, de én helyenként untam.
2.) Hadd adjam most át a szót a szkeptikus énemnek. Szóval az van, hogy szerintem minden olyan politikai elmélet, ami túlzott aktivitást vár el a plebstől, némiképp az ideák világához tartozik. Úgy értem, az ember úgy általában annyit vár a politikumtól, hogy hagyja békén. És ez egy respektálható igény - én is leginkább azt szeretném, hogy olvasgathassak, lóghassak a gyerekeimmel, és eszembe se jusson közben a polgári törvénykönyv vagy hogy milyen párt is van hatalmon. Nyilván vannak helyzetek, amikor a társadalmi aktivitás valamilyen szinten morális kérdés, ilyenkor valóban elvárható, hogy tiltakozzak, illetve keressem az együttműködést a hozzám hasonló elégedetlenekkel. De amikor Skach azt javasolja, hogy termesszek paradicsomot, mert ezzel is csökkentem a hatalomnak való kitettségemet, nos, az már kicsit sok. Elméletben egyetértek, de basszus, rohadtul nem szeretek kapálni, bocs. Tudom, milyen az - nem jó. Teljesen egyetértek azzal, hogy a kisközösségek megteremtése a kulcsa a jól működő demokráciának, de valahogy az arany középutat kéne megtalálni aközött, amit Skach szerint el kéne végezni, és amit hajlandó is vagyok (hajlandóak is vagyunk) elvégezni.
August 30, 2025
Vamos let’s go
Read
July 20, 2024Not going to rate because it’s one of our books (Basic)
I thought it was a really interesting idea. Felt like the intro and conclusion were the most impactful.
Pretty short and easy to read (I’m just slow cause I’m reading too many things at once)
I thought it was a really interesting idea. Felt like the intro and conclusion were the most impactful.
Pretty short and easy to read (I’m just slow cause I’m reading too many things at once)
April 11, 2024
Making The Case For Practical Anarchy While Proclaiming Non-State Democracy. As an avowed and open Anarchist, any time I find a book proclaiming in its title to be about how to live effectively in community without the State... I tend to pick it up.
Here, Skach makes quite clear that she is terrified of a particular "A" word (that I've already used twice in the preceding paragraph) and instead proclaims her arguments to be in favor of State-less democracy... while failing to realize that Anarchy literally means only "no government" - ie, "no State", ie, "Without the State" (to use the exact phrasing from the subtitle). As Lysander Spooner and other thinkers over the Millenia have espoused, there can be numerous forms of order under Anarchy - Anarchy has never meant "without order", only "without government". Thus, Skach's preference for community-based democracy falls right in line with the very idea.
But regardless of Skach's fear of the "A" word or your own (the reader of my review) preference for any other form of community organization, Skach actually does a truly remarkable job of showing just how a Stateless - ie, Anarchic - society could practically work *even in the current environment*. Yes, there are numerous issues she doesn't touch, and yes, there is plenty of room for the usual "what if" game that proponents of State and its slaughter of literally hundreds of millions of people in the last 150 yrs alone routinely bring up.
But for those who don't think it can work even at a very basic level, that survival would be impossible because the world would be "without order", Skach makes clear that both spontaneous and coordinated order can be had - and can be had in a far better manner than at present - *without* the State.
There will be many who won't read this book at all or won't truly consider its ideas, but for those who are willing to at least consider the possibility that perhaps the West (and East, insofar as their systems of government go) could do better, that perhaps the US in particular *has* to have some better way of doing things... maybe pick this book up. Read it slowly. Truly ponder its ideas and trul ruminate over them, asking yourself the hard questions about why you may think the State is the best answer, even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and the fact that this book is releasing in the US going into its biggest State holiday weekend, when the entire country - and, due to the US's prominence since 1944 or so, even large parts of the entire world - will be celebrating a few hundred thousand people declaring their independence from the *then* global superpower... well, that's just icing on this particular cake.
I will note, as really more of an aside, that the bibliography clocks in at just 17% of the Advance Review Copy edition of the book I read, which is perhaps a touch low - but I've also been openly stating for a bit now that perhaps my 20-30% standard should be lowered a touch given so many more recent books have been a touch lower than this, and 17% seems like it would fit within the true current average, if maybe still a touch on the lower end of the range.
Overall a truly excellent book so far as it goes, I personally just really wish it had more openly embraced the very concepts even its title openly yet not brazenly proclaims. Very much recommended.
Here, Skach makes quite clear that she is terrified of a particular "A" word (that I've already used twice in the preceding paragraph) and instead proclaims her arguments to be in favor of State-less democracy... while failing to realize that Anarchy literally means only "no government" - ie, "no State", ie, "Without the State" (to use the exact phrasing from the subtitle). As Lysander Spooner and other thinkers over the Millenia have espoused, there can be numerous forms of order under Anarchy - Anarchy has never meant "without order", only "without government". Thus, Skach's preference for community-based democracy falls right in line with the very idea.
But regardless of Skach's fear of the "A" word or your own (the reader of my review) preference for any other form of community organization, Skach actually does a truly remarkable job of showing just how a Stateless - ie, Anarchic - society could practically work *even in the current environment*. Yes, there are numerous issues she doesn't touch, and yes, there is plenty of room for the usual "what if" game that proponents of State and its slaughter of literally hundreds of millions of people in the last 150 yrs alone routinely bring up.
But for those who don't think it can work even at a very basic level, that survival would be impossible because the world would be "without order", Skach makes clear that both spontaneous and coordinated order can be had - and can be had in a far better manner than at present - *without* the State.
There will be many who won't read this book at all or won't truly consider its ideas, but for those who are willing to at least consider the possibility that perhaps the West (and East, insofar as their systems of government go) could do better, that perhaps the US in particular *has* to have some better way of doing things... maybe pick this book up. Read it slowly. Truly ponder its ideas and trul ruminate over them, asking yourself the hard questions about why you may think the State is the best answer, even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and the fact that this book is releasing in the US going into its biggest State holiday weekend, when the entire country - and, due to the US's prominence since 1944 or so, even large parts of the entire world - will be celebrating a few hundred thousand people declaring their independence from the *then* global superpower... well, that's just icing on this particular cake.
I will note, as really more of an aside, that the bibliography clocks in at just 17% of the Advance Review Copy edition of the book I read, which is perhaps a touch low - but I've also been openly stating for a bit now that perhaps my 20-30% standard should be lowered a touch given so many more recent books have been a touch lower than this, and 17% seems like it would fit within the true current average, if maybe still a touch on the lower end of the range.
Overall a truly excellent book so far as it goes, I personally just really wish it had more openly embraced the very concepts even its title openly yet not brazenly proclaims. Very much recommended.
March 29, 2025
This book was a great read, it was very eye opening to what can be done in your local circle to help change the world around you. I have recently been a fan of the mindset of the only way to make big changes is to do so close to home and this book took that mindset and expanded on it, the ideas inside are ones that show the way to make the local change. The author does a great job citing sources and moments in history where these ideas showed change and what the continuing effects were from these moments.
In the final chapter the author speaks to education especially for children, and that I think is one of the most important ideas spoken about in this book. We need to take time to raise young citizens to be caring, fearless, and educated adults, these will be the people that will make the biggest impacts to the world because they are the ones who will be taking over at some point. If we don't make the efforts to raise them in a way to think of others and be accepting of each other then things won't change no matter how hard we as adults try to fix things.
My biggest take away from this book is that we have to get outside of ourselves, our homes, and expand our current social circles to meet with new people, to discuss hard topics and share resources whether through the discussion of books like this one or just food and companionship. I am definitely someone who struggles to break outside of my comfort zone but the ideas in this book are ones that you don't have to go to far outside of that comfort to be civil without the state, you can stay within your circles or local watering holes but it seems to me that there can be more change and that you'll be a participating citizen if you try and break out to new areas, speak to new people and educate yourself and others if possible.
In the final chapter the author speaks to education especially for children, and that I think is one of the most important ideas spoken about in this book. We need to take time to raise young citizens to be caring, fearless, and educated adults, these will be the people that will make the biggest impacts to the world because they are the ones who will be taking over at some point. If we don't make the efforts to raise them in a way to think of others and be accepting of each other then things won't change no matter how hard we as adults try to fix things.
My biggest take away from this book is that we have to get outside of ourselves, our homes, and expand our current social circles to meet with new people, to discuss hard topics and share resources whether through the discussion of books like this one or just food and companionship. I am definitely someone who struggles to break outside of my comfort zone but the ideas in this book are ones that you don't have to go to far outside of that comfort to be civil without the state, you can stay within your circles or local watering holes but it seems to me that there can be more change and that you'll be a participating citizen if you try and break out to new areas, speak to new people and educate yourself and others if possible.
June 7, 2026
This starts off as a book about how Skach believes constitutions are ineffective and seemingly do more harm than good. Then it slowly evolves into a discussion on the need for increased civic engagement and community-building. I thought it would be an entire book about the former with some proposed solutions (given the author's background), but I feel this did not accomplish that.
The writing did not flow well at times, with anecdotal interjections dropped in to try to segue into Skach's argument for that section. I think this could've benefited greatly from a more structured organization. Rather than simply doing just chapters, chapters with subsections and useful headers would've been fantastic for the type of argument Skach is trying to lay out, and it would've made the text easier to reference in case one wanted to go back over a specific section.
Ideologically, I think this book's biggest flaw is that Skach's argument is based off the notion that people rely on constitutions (and laws) that seem to outlaw the type of civic action Skach advocates for. What Skach proposes in this book is actually compatible with a country governed by a constitution (at least speaking from the US). This is highlighted even more when, in the end, Skach doesn't argue in favor of civil disobedience or a government overthrow - likely because being civil (according to this book) isn't really forbidden by law. There seemingly then isn't anything holding us back from Skach's proposal, let alone what our constitutions say.
The writing did not flow well at times, with anecdotal interjections dropped in to try to segue into Skach's argument for that section. I think this could've benefited greatly from a more structured organization. Rather than simply doing just chapters, chapters with subsections and useful headers would've been fantastic for the type of argument Skach is trying to lay out, and it would've made the text easier to reference in case one wanted to go back over a specific section.
Ideologically, I think this book's biggest flaw is that Skach's argument is based off the notion that people rely on constitutions (and laws) that seem to outlaw the type of civic action Skach advocates for. What Skach proposes in this book is actually compatible with a country governed by a constitution (at least speaking from the US). This is highlighted even more when, in the end, Skach doesn't argue in favor of civil disobedience or a government overthrow - likely because being civil (according to this book) isn't really forbidden by law. There seemingly then isn't anything holding us back from Skach's proposal, let alone what our constitutions say.
June 24, 2025
If I’d given a review for this book before reading the conclusion, I would’ve given it a 5. I recommended it to everyone before finishing it! But then the author directly contradicted herself in the conclusion by saying that the world right now needs less civil disobedience and less obstruction of government. Yet she spent the entire book describing how government is what gets in the way of us living our best lives.
Her recommendations are mostly excellent, but they don’t consider the fact that we live in a caste system. We have classes of people that aren’t equal to each other, socially and legally and politically. So while we can and must be better citizens to each other, there is very real systemic harm being done — by the government — to people. Not all of us experience this harm equally and not all of us have the same power to resist this harm.
So, this book descended to a 3-Star rating and I’ve contacted my friends with my updated recommendations. This book is okay. Maybe don’t read the conclusion.
Her recommendations are mostly excellent, but they don’t consider the fact that we live in a caste system. We have classes of people that aren’t equal to each other, socially and legally and politically. So while we can and must be better citizens to each other, there is very real systemic harm being done — by the government — to people. Not all of us experience this harm equally and not all of us have the same power to resist this harm.
So, this book descended to a 3-Star rating and I’ve contacted my friends with my updated recommendations. This book is okay. Maybe don’t read the conclusion.
Read
July 31, 2025Thank you to NetGalley and Bloomsbury Publishing for an eARC in exchange for an honest review
Picking up anything and everything on community these days and community cannot exist without each person taking small steps towards a collective!!
There was a lot of political discussion here that was completely new to me, however I did feel that Skach worked hard to try and keep all the conversations suitable for a beginner as well as someone who's got more of a background in the subject.
I wasn't sure that I'd learnt anything new about actioning community initiatives etc., but I did learn a whole new perspective on laws and constitutions and the way that although they aim to protect us and can do a lot of good, they don't necessarily encourage us to get along with each other. Was an interesting point to think on!
Picking up anything and everything on community these days and community cannot exist without each person taking small steps towards a collective!!
There was a lot of political discussion here that was completely new to me, however I did feel that Skach worked hard to try and keep all the conversations suitable for a beginner as well as someone who's got more of a background in the subject.
I wasn't sure that I'd learnt anything new about actioning community initiatives etc., but I did learn a whole new perspective on laws and constitutions and the way that although they aim to protect us and can do a lot of good, they don't necessarily encourage us to get along with each other. Was an interesting point to think on!
March 19, 2025
A nice reminder of the value of community and the importance of getting involved in local affairs and politics, supported by anecdotes and studies.
I would have liked to read more about how the author envisions that some of these ideas could come together a a global scale though.. I felt that there was nothing very novel presented in this book, but a good reminder nonetheless.
I would have liked to read more about how the author envisions that some of these ideas could come together a a global scale though.. I felt that there was nothing very novel presented in this book, but a good reminder nonetheless.
November 4, 2025
Somewhat stiffly written book that still makes an interesting point athwart neoliberalism and anarchism both: sure, let's keep the Constitution, but what smaller, local civic actions, spaces, and virtues would make rights real in practice, and once you've conceded that, is a governing document actually a hurdle to moral development?
December 27, 2025
While the fatigue from failing centralized leadership/institutions, the need for personal responsibility and civic closeness resonates with me, I am not convinced a bottom-up, local, spontaneous, horizontal and hierarchical constructs for governance scales enough to be materially better.The book offered clarity but not closure.
April 16, 2025
This was a fascinating read! The author articulated her ideas really well and made her research very digestible. Will be recommending to literally everyone.
Read
August 24, 2025Scanned
July 7, 2026
Really informative and inspiring. Hope I can put this into action
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews