Post by @paultimate14@lemmy.world

2026-10-29 13:00 UTC

violence is only permissive What does this mean? I understand you go on to list the circumstances where violence could be permitted, but who exactly is doing the permitting here and how does that work? Are we expecting everyone who feels that their rights have been violated to be responsible for their own justice? If we want to ban people from using violence to achieve their own goals, or for collectivizing violence…How do you does anyone actually stop them? There are options like economic and social consequences, but when I look at world history those things can only succeed in rare scenarios. in defense of the rights of self or others Who judges this in an anarchist society? This is a statement that is very easy for political philosophers to make but is incredibly difficult to translate to the real world. Even on the case of individual vs individual, physical violence. But what about the more abstract violence? Looking back at ancient history, that could be things like overhunting, overfishing, overlogging. Hoarding rain water. People living downstream of others dealing with human waste in the river they depend upon. In modern times, who do we stop people from mining and burning fossil fuels? i’m uneasy about the leveling mechanisms 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 against the wealthy, for the crime of being too wealthy.

Replies (1)

@bss03@infosec.pub 2026-10-29 14:53

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.

Open ##5479089