Is there a law that discourse is dominated by? Does free thought have to be expressed regimented, codified manner? Or, is language the only necessity to express ones thoughts properly? Is that even exact? James Marsh investigates this issue in "Critique, Action, and Liberation", which he elaborates upon from Habermas's philosophy.

In his work, Marsh outlines Habermas's certain code that discourse must follow. It is broken up into three distinct levels: logical, dialectical and rhetorical. In the logical grouping are very basic rules. These rules ban self-contradiction and the use of similar ideas for different ideas. This grouping also forces the speaker to apply all antecedents to any matching subject. Upon basic review these rules can be found basic for the average speaker.

The laws continue in the dialectical level. At this level those involved in the discourse are attempting to reach understanding, collaborating on a similar attitude, but debating the validity of problematic claims. At this level the philosophers demand that each side firmly state their beliefs, and that if one speaker wishes to discuss a subject differing from the direct topic, they must offer reasons to diverge. This level focuses the discussion towards a conclusion.

The final level of discourse codified is the rhetorical level. At this level, the goal is reaching a rational agreement. This is the stage at which concessions are made. The rules for this level invite more discussants. Every competent speaker is allowed to participate in the discussion. Assertions can be made by any participating member and that assertion can be contested. Also, everyone is allowed to express subjective, personal beliefs into the discussion, including needs, wants, and emotions. Finally, no speaker can be prevented, in any way, from being able to express these promised allowances. This includes both external and internal prevention.

For example, these laws can be considered in a hypothetical discussion concerning the hilarious Internet website, Homestar Runner, between Patrick Stanley and myself. In this discussion we will discuss which of the cartoons on the website is the best. To start in the logical level, Patrick would not be able to say that Strong Bad, the main character in the cartoon he is defending, is both funny, and un-witty, that would directly contradict his belief statement. Also, if he described Strong Bad as aggressive, in the sense that he is passionate about his beliefs, I would not be able to later call Strong Bad aggressive for his premonition towards violence. At this stage, the conversation is not severely hindered by the rules mandated.

When the discussion reaches the dialectical level, our problems are clearly manifested and our discourse begins to form in order to solve a single issue. To fulfill the first rule Patrick would clearly state that "Guitar" is his favorite cartoon, while I would clearly state that "Caffeine" is my favorite. We would both agree that the E-mail section of the website is comical, but differences in specific hilarity would manifest itself. If the Patrick decides it is important to discuss the comedic relevance of the character Coach Z, he would have to offer me sufficient reasoning to present that tangent discussion into our greater discourse.

Finally, at the rhetorical level of the discourse concerning Strong Bad, our final conclusion will be made through compromise. At his stage in the discussion, Patrick and I would have to allow the participation of Megan Keaveny and Sara Boyorak, because they could offer intelligent rationality into our discussion. Also, Sara would be able to interject any emotions that could influence the discussion, including a resemblance that she finds between the character, the Cheat, and her father. Finally, no one in the conversation could prevent Megan from saying anything she chose to, involving either direct reasons to an issue being raised or her emotions concerning the topic. Also, she would not be able to prevent herself something that would add to the discussion from fear of "sounding stupid."

In order to believe in these rules, one shared belief is demanded however; the belief in a rule system at all. As an anarchist, one is forced to reject all rules. This includes laws that supposedly dictate social interactions like the laws presented as ruling discourse.

The anarchist collective, "CrimethInc." openly disagrees with most of these rules. In their book, "Days of Love, Nights of War" they present a section on hypocrisy. In this section the authors demand that anyone that considers him or her an anarchist must allow himself or herself to be hypocritical. This openly defies the first rule presented by Habermas and Marsh, calling the discussants to never contradict oneself. CrimethInc. writers say that for one to subscribe to the self-imposed rules as such, is giving into a rule system, which directly contradicts anarchism. Even if one were forced to never contradict oneself in discourse, they would contradict themselves in that action.

Broader than simply the terms suggested by CrimethInc., all anarchists would disagree with the rules proposed. Anarchism, a product of a post-capital society, prevents any social norms from becoming codified as law. True anarchists would however take this rejection of the rules of discourse further by proposing the necessity of language is ludicrous.

Finally, both Habermas and Marsh agreeing with the anarchist's position completely contradict themselves with the final rule published. The exact rule is as follows:

3.3 No speaker may be prevented, by internal or external coercions, from exercising his rights laid down in 3.1 (referring to allowing of competent speakers into the discussion) and 3.2 (referring to the allowing any assertions or introductions of emotions or critiques.

For someone to follow these rules, they must not be internally coerced into following the laws presented in the other steps, as they may conflict with this rule.