By not creating the mass murderers and terrorists in the first place, ideally.
Beyond that, anarchism usually embraces the idea of the broadly armed society and militias.
My critique of that is that’s how you get tge US in the war of 1812. You don’t want to be the US in the war of 1812.
My critique of your critique is that professional militaries are how you get every other fucking war since then, lol
And 1812, because a British militia wasn’t going to independently invade America. That’s something statists do.
Plus:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
Seems pretty even to me.
My critique of your critique of my critique is two part. One you’re not wrong. Two it would require everyone everywhere to agree to no professional armies.
I guess it’s three parts because the militia based army of the US is the one that invaded Canada first. They were just really, really bad.
Likely a volunteer neighborhood watch, then multiple neighborhood watch from different villages would coordinate and eventually they would probably consolidate to make coordination easier, perhaps some kind of salary, oh wait…
It wouldn’t.
Stateless societies don’t work, that’s why despite thousands of years of recorded history, we don’t have any record of one ever succeeding.
Even just having a village elder who decides disputes is a form of state. Hell, having parents who decide the rules in a family is a form of state.
States didn’t exist until a few thousand years ago. Hundreds of thousands of years of human history never had states.
You don’t need a state to function and reducing the concept of state to encapsulate non-state things (eg. Parenting) is a bit silly.
That’s true, but in those ages ppl still got speared in the back or ritually sacrificed. So is this more successful than all of todays states in case of murdering and terrorising? I doubt it.
Also, if there are a couple tribes enough distance apart to each be self-sufficient, there is no incentive to even have a state. Government/states only became useful once too many people lived too closely together.
And it’s not like we can go back to tribal self-sufficiency.
States did exist, just because it was the strongest man in the tribe declaring the rules arbitrarily didn’t make it not a state.
We co-operated, it was never a case of strongest = leader. That alpha shit is inaccurate.
There would be FAR less terrorism because terrorism is just the violent reaction to injustices perpetrated BY THE STATE by people that feel they’ve been wronged by the state.
I call myself an Anarchist, but I don’t think there are many reasonable Anarchists who want a society without any government. It’s necessary for the function of protecting people. It shouldn’t be involved in telling people how to live their lives where it doesn’t effect others though, such as laws against drug use or any other lifestyle choices. It should step in to protect people from exploitation and dangers that they don’t choose freely.
To answer your question, it couldn’t. Essentially no one is asking for that though, so it’s not really a useful question.
As an anarchist, I answer this just about the same way I answer most questions. Through consensus of those involved, the form that takes is going to be different for each region, community, et cetera. Those that make up society need to have some way of making collective decisions, but it doesn’t need to be a state to achieve that. States are new, governing is not. I favor consensus democracy, but it’s by no means the only method. But questions like this are a double edged sword, they’re vital to explaining left libertarianism, but they’re also proof of how far we have to go before people understand even the basics of it. Stateless does not mean ungoverned, just as anarchism does not mean chaos. It’s simple a governing by the people. If we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves how in the hell do we think this is a tenable system, in which we choose individuals to govern us?
I honestly don’t understand how this works and I want to.
If everyone decides murder is wrong, then some people will have to be the force to investigate and punish those crimes.
Who is accountable for overseeing those using force to ensure they don’t use it for personal gain?
Isn’t that technically not anarchism? It sounds more like direct democracy with limited government.
Here’s a good page that goes into more detail, but no. Anarchism is not a total lack of government. It’s the removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation (inside and out of the government).
