Skyhilist
1st March 2013, 03:43
I've thought this through for a while and my idea was that a common front or something like that would just step in if any environmental or social harm was done by a local community through direct democracy, or something like that. I'm sure there's a more rational answer to this though and a more concrete way of dealing with potential environmental and social problems direct democracy might bring if unregulated, so I'd like to hear them if anyone knows about how most anarchists would deal with this issue.
Let me clarify a little more. I know that post-revolution, a lot of the incentive to pollute the planet would be taken away to begin with, but there I think certainly would be at least some instances where some people would do things like pollute or poach or kill animals (like snakes) just because they didn't like them if there was no environmental regulation. So clearly there's gotta be some way of regulating this. But I don't think local communities can always be trusted to regulate themselves. Like in the southern United States, towns where "Rattesnake Roundups" occur promote the mass slaughter of the snakes for entertainment and have decimated native populations, obviously having a very negative environmental impact. If backwards communities like these were allowed to regulate themselves, they would certainly act in environmentally harmful ways by continuing harmful traditions like Rattlesnake Roundups. So how would these more backwards communities and regions be regulated and stopped from causing severe environmental degradation via their backwards ways? How would this be done without a state and without ever instituting illegitimate authority?
Moreover, how would it be done in other cases as well, like in schools? In some areas of the south, more people support creationism being taught in schools than do not; in fact in some places down there and I'd imagine in other more religious parts of the world as well, even the majority of teachers support teaching creationism and/or other anti-science beliefs. Schools clearly shouldn't be instilling new generations with anti-science beliefs, so once again, how would we combat this without instituting a state?
I'm completely aware that these issues would likely be somewhat marginalized in a world where attitudes had changed enough for their to be a revolution. But even assuming that, I think such issues would certainly still be a legitimate problem that would need to be dealt with, to quite a serious extent. As I said earlier, my idea was that a common front of revolutionaries would step in should communities ever make such terrible decisions, however I'm pretty sure there's a more rational anarchist solution that I simply haven't heard. So could someone who knows about this please explain to me how these problems could be efficiently dealt with without instituting a state? I'm looking for like a coherent system here where we don't have to look at thousands of possible poor decisions (e.g. "teach creationism") made by local communities on a case by case basis.
Thanks in advance.
Let me clarify a little more. I know that post-revolution, a lot of the incentive to pollute the planet would be taken away to begin with, but there I think certainly would be at least some instances where some people would do things like pollute or poach or kill animals (like snakes) just because they didn't like them if there was no environmental regulation. So clearly there's gotta be some way of regulating this. But I don't think local communities can always be trusted to regulate themselves. Like in the southern United States, towns where "Rattesnake Roundups" occur promote the mass slaughter of the snakes for entertainment and have decimated native populations, obviously having a very negative environmental impact. If backwards communities like these were allowed to regulate themselves, they would certainly act in environmentally harmful ways by continuing harmful traditions like Rattlesnake Roundups. So how would these more backwards communities and regions be regulated and stopped from causing severe environmental degradation via their backwards ways? How would this be done without a state and without ever instituting illegitimate authority?
Moreover, how would it be done in other cases as well, like in schools? In some areas of the south, more people support creationism being taught in schools than do not; in fact in some places down there and I'd imagine in other more religious parts of the world as well, even the majority of teachers support teaching creationism and/or other anti-science beliefs. Schools clearly shouldn't be instilling new generations with anti-science beliefs, so once again, how would we combat this without instituting a state?
I'm completely aware that these issues would likely be somewhat marginalized in a world where attitudes had changed enough for their to be a revolution. But even assuming that, I think such issues would certainly still be a legitimate problem that would need to be dealt with, to quite a serious extent. As I said earlier, my idea was that a common front of revolutionaries would step in should communities ever make such terrible decisions, however I'm pretty sure there's a more rational anarchist solution that I simply haven't heard. So could someone who knows about this please explain to me how these problems could be efficiently dealt with without instituting a state? I'm looking for like a coherent system here where we don't have to look at thousands of possible poor decisions (e.g. "teach creationism") made by local communities on a case by case basis.
Thanks in advance.