Anarchism is a philosophy, not a means of governing.
But any anarchist would tell you that all actions have consequences. In one scenario - where human trafficking is discovered, a group of anarchists might play Dredd to bring justice to the syndicate. That group would then face consequences and be subject to investigation by the community. It could even look like a trial.
What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What’s stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won’t submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don’t see it turning out any other way. The system isn’t stable.
Isn’t it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I’m aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven’t got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
The trial part?
I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.
Well when I think of a trial I think of laws and statutes and torts and legislation that go along with legal proceedings.
So is it basically mega democracy where everyone gets involved? how will the majority ensure the minority will be protected? like that pesky john family who refuse to let us eat their dogs?
Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.
Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.
Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone’s dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn’t of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.
Anarchism is a philosophy, not a means of governing.
But any anarchist would tell you that all actions have consequences. In one scenario - where human trafficking is discovered, a group of anarchists might play Dredd to bring justice to the syndicate. That group would then face consequences and be subject to investigation by the community. It could even look like a trial.
What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What’s stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won’t submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don’t see it turning out any other way. The system isn’t stable.
Isn’t it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I’m aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven’t got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
So the group of dredd anarchists create a government?
What? Where did you get that?
The trial part? I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.
Well when I think of a trial I think of laws and statutes and torts and legislation that go along with legal proceedings.
So is it basically mega democracy where everyone gets involved? how will the majority ensure the minority will be protected? like that pesky john family who refuse to let us eat their dogs?
Yes it is a mega democracy.
Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.
Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.
Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone’s dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn’t of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.
hm. tangibly related, but I’m curious what you think of the Plurbs from Pluribus, if you’ve seen that show. Is perfect anarchism peace on Earth?
I haven’t seen the show, but peace without needing to enforce it is the ultimate goal.