Post by @bss03@infosec.pub

2026-10-29 14:53 UTC

Are we expecting everyone who feels that their rights have been violated to be responsible for their own justice? No, you are called to defend not only yourself, but others as well. Everyone is responsible both for their own and everyone else’s justice. If you are more capable and willing to produce justice, you may produce more than you need. In many ways it is like all the other requirements of a good life: excess freely given, unmet need freely taken. If someone wants to fit into some “heroic police officer” or even “hero vigilante” role, they will likely be celebrated and supported as long as their actions are heroic, but if they take any bad actions they will be reprimanded and resisted; they chosen role will not be a justification or mitigation. How do you does anyone actually stop them? Threats of violence are allowed to be neutralized by whatever means, including preemptive, defensive violence. All actions should be for the collective good, even as they are done by individuals. Collaboration, communication, and coordination are encouraged in whatever form the individuals find is best. I think a lot of what is done depends too much on specifics to make general statements. But, anything from a strong talking to next time the offender interacts with the community to assassination to revolution-scale secretive, cellular, violent action might be justified. Who judges this in an anarchist society? Each person is their own conscience. Anyone may arbitrate, and others might comply or ignore it as their conscience dictates. Arbitration might call for violence, and if executed, that violence will surely be judged in turn. But what about the more abstract violence? In modern times, who do we stop people from mining and burning fossil fuels? Despoiling the commons is considered anti-social behavior and is subject to resistance. Generally this will start with a discussion, but if consensus can’t be reached, property damage (e.g. destroying tools and/or machinery) will stop the worst effects with no “crimes against persons”. But, persons or organizations that purposely and repeatedly engage in anti-social behavior will be treated as if they were the government and resisted potentially violently. High marginal tax rates funding social programs has, historically, worked. Part of what is necessary for it to work though is the collective and organized threat of violence I don’t disagree. I’m all for bringing back to 92% marginal tax bracket, getting rid of corporate welfare (particularly for petrochemical companies), and really building a safety net that ensures no one has to go without food, water, clothing, and shelter, whether they can work or not. I can defend anarchy while still working within the existing systems. Sometimes the best way to the goal actually is building up something you later will choose to tear down. I’m not even a committed anarchist, but I know that all of your questions, and every “gotcha” question for anarchists I’ve ever seen, has already been considered and answered in anarchist theory, sometime many, many times – often even refined through the practice of anarchist societies.

Replies (1)

@paultimate14@lemmy.world 2026-10-29 19:05

No, you are called to defend not only yourself, but others as well. So the meek are dependent upon the benevolence and excess production of the strong. Everyone is responsible both for their own and everyone else’s justice This is assuming that “justice” is constant, objective, and binary, when it is none of those things. This is also assuming the capacity exists for individuals. I could very easily choose to travel to Gaza or Ukraine right now, and I am sure I could find a way to join the Palestinians and Ukrainians in their respective fights. I am not doing that, because there are other things I want to do with my life. I could participate in some sort of community watch program if I wanted to, but I do not because I have other things I want to do with my life. We need to compel people with the threat of violence just to get them to participate in jury duty, and you expect them to suddenly dedicate their lives to defending everyone else? That is simply not how humans work. If someone wants to fit into some “heroic police officer” or even “hero vigilante” role, they will likely be celebrated and supported as long as their actions are heroic, but if they take any bad actions they will be reprimanded and resisted; they chosen role will not be a justification or mitigation. There are no objective lines between heroic or villainous actions. Heroes and villains are works of fiction. In reality, heroes and villains are determined by messaging, public relations, and marketing. Drive through any town in America and count how many thin blue line signs you see. These people honestly believe that the police are heroes. A lot of people think “the troops” are heroes for murdering brown people in the middle east. All actions should be for the collective good The term “collective good” sounds really great in essays on political philosophies, but has been impossible to put into practice in the real world. There are some right now who believe that sacrificing our land, our water, our trees, our energy, and the work of human artisans to create AI is in favor of the “collective good”. all of your questions, and every “gotcha” question for anarchists I’ve ever seen, has already been considered and answered in anarchist theory, sometime many, many times I could have gone through your whole comment and continued, but it’s all the same stuff. These are not “gotcha” questions. They are the very real and obvious flaws that are the reasons that anarchism is not popular. This is not the first time I have sought out the answers to these questions myself. I suppose our difference here is that when I read anarchist theory, I find some ideas that I like but a lot of the solutions are incredibly optimistic, or are dependent upon a world in which everyone was born into an anarchist utopia. And I don’t mean that as a particular dig at anarchy. I’m sure we could talk and agree at-length about the problems with authoritarianism of all kinds. Even my preferred system, social democracy, has some very clear and obvious flaws like protecting minorities and the state monopoly on violence. I’m in favor of elections for representative democracy in general, but electoralism has plenty of its own flaws and needs to be tempered with other forms of democracy.

Open ##5480203