Question for Anarchists

[ToxicAcidRed]

Anarchism by definition is a society with no class, state, or authority.
That means everyone is litterly free to do anything they want
Everyone on this site who is unrestricted has to support feminism and LGBT Rights

In an Anarchist society won't people be free to commit sexual assault, preach homophobia, and commit racist hate crimes without punishment?

[Sasha]

since the more indept anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ) is by now two hefty tomes i am going to link to a shorter intro of that FAQ that does cover all the basics and could answer at least the question you ask here and most questions that will follow from that: http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secA1.html

[Sinister Intents]

Anarchism by definition is a society with no class, state, or authority.
That means everyone is litterly free to do anything they want
Everyone on this site who is unrestricted has to support feminism and LGBT Rights

In an Anarchist society won't people be free to commit sexual assault, preach homophobia, and commit racist hate crimes without punishment?

Anarchist Morality (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1897/morality.htm) Read this.

and this Anarchism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1910/britannica.htm) for Encyclopedia Britannica

You can thank Kropotkin for these.

Under anarchy it will be the commune, collective, et cetera that decides upon the rules democratically and I see no reason a communal militia or police force can't be created by and of the people of the commune to protect the people of the commune from heinous crimes. Plus when socialism is achieved the root of these problems will be destroyed, capitalism and patriarchal society create these problems and these problems will persist until capitalism is fully destroyed.

[AnaRchic]

Some of that stuff will without a doubt continue to exist in an anarchy, but it can be dealt with. Unlike some comrades, I do not accept the existence of any law or any form of police, whether under the control of a community or not. So sure, someone may literally be 'free' to do whatever they want, but others are equally free to defend themselves against aggression.

Whether this defense is primarily individual or communal or some combination of the two, defensive force will exist to counter such sociopathic behavior. Ultimately I think the vast majority of people will see relations of affinity and cooperation as far more conducive to their own self-interest than aggression.

[Future]

Anarchism by definition is a society with no class, state, or authority.
That means everyone is litterly free to do anything they want
Everyone on this site who is unrestricted has to support feminism and LGBT Rights

In an Anarchist society won't people be free to commit sexual assault, preach homophobia, and commit racist hate crimes without punishment?

Anarchism is a society without authority, not without order. Anarchists do not desire unbridled freedom no matter the cost, Toxic. We desire freedom for ourselves without infringing on the freedoms of others. True liberty is not just obtaining personal freedom, it is the inability to infringe on the freedoms of others. We support organization and order and structure as much as anyone else; just not immoral organization and order and structure.

In an anarchist society, people will not be free to commit sexual assaults and commit hate crimes without being accountable. We anarchists wish to eradicate all forms of authority no matter where they come from. Why would we fight so hard to eradicate the abuse of the state and capitalism only to allow individuals to abuse us afterwards? Anarchists would fight against individual criminal authority in the same way that we would fight against capitalism and the state. We just don't believe in hierarchical police systems and the like. Each community would have to deal with crime on its own in its own non-hierarchical way. No one is against a horizontal group accountable to the people who would be active in helping its community when it is threatened by authority. We anarchists just oppose a solid hierarchial police system whose job it is (or would become) to create the criminals they wish to aprehend.

Also, any form of criminal justice in an anarchist society would be based on rehabilitation instead of punishment. And keep in mind that we are convinced that when the state and capitalism are eradicated, the overwhelming majority of criminal behvavior will fade away.

Edit: Also, preaching homophobia would be protected under freedom of speech and expression. However, trying to force an anti-homosexual agenda onto society would be seen as an immoral encroachment of authority and thus not tolerated.

[argeiphontes]

To me, anarchism means the questioning of all authority and dismantling of all illegitimate authority. Sometimes an authority can be legitimate. Crime prevention isn't really a problem because people who have no incentive to commit crimes generally get along just fine, and preventing someone from committing a crime is less of an infringement on freedom than that person would have committed. Remember, in anarchist society, your freedom ends where somebody else's begins. You are not free to go around destroying other people's freedoms, which is one way to look at crime.

Also, what Future said above ^.

[Skyhilist]

Anarchism by definition is a society with no class, state, or authority.

“Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.” -Mikhael Bakunin

[Future]

Also, I'd like to add that a local voluntary police-like horizontal group that only becomes active when the need arrives and stops people who are infringing on other people's freedoms would not be an "authority". They would not be acting to impose power on a criminal - they would be acting to stop the criminal's immoral exercise of authority. Defending yourself from authority does not make one an authority - simply a defender of freedom.

And like has been said, not all forms of authority are illegitimate and it is the job of an anarchist to question all the shapes it comes in and determine if it can be justified. The authority of the doctor is very valuable and should be respected. The authority of a scientist is very valuable and should be respected. No one is arguing against that kind of authority - only the kinds of authority that seek to impose themselves over others by limiting their freedom (and keep in mind what freedom actually means to us anarchists as I described above).

[BIXX]

“Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.” -Mikhael Bakunin

One of the areas I feel Bakunin was wrong, as I believe the term authority in that context is more of a peculiarity of language than anything else.

Someone is free to defend or avenge themselves should these acts occur (which, if we have destroyed power as a concept and as a reality, shouldn't be able to happen).

I'm not so much for order as freedom, and that cannot be achieved until anyone who does oppressive shit like that can expect to be swiftly killed or struggled against. Whether it is ordered (which I hope not, as chaos is just breaking patterns which I think is beneficial, and also if it is ordered that means that it would probably be through some state apparatus) or not is inconsequential.

Again though, if we destroy power as a concept oppression and oppressive acts most likely wouldn't even occur to people.

[Skyhilist]

Meh I don't think that the way he talks about authority is all that peculiar. I mean for example, even today if we talk about a well respected scientist or something we might refer to them as "a well respected scientific authority". But if parts of his language seem peculiar, it might be also because language isn't exactly the same now as it was back then.

Anyways, the way Bakunin says "authority", he certainly doesn't mean someone who people have to submit to (but only would likely defer to, voluntarily), as evident by the full quote of that paragraph:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others." --Mikhail Bakunin

[BIXX]

Meh I don't think that the way he talks about authority is all that peculiar. I mean for example, even today if we talk about a well respected scientist or something we might refer to them as "a well respected scientific authority". But if parts of his language seem peculiar, it might be also because language isn't exactly the same now as it was back then.

I meant a peculiarity of the language in general, not his usage of it. Sorry, I should have clarified.


Anyways, the way Bakunin says "authority", he certainly doesn't mean someone who people have to submit to (but only would likely defer to, voluntarily), as evident by the full quote of that paragraph:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others." --Mikhail Bakunin


Yes, I know what he said. But I can't quite bring myself to believe that someone who is knowledgable about something is an authority, but rather a knowledgable individual. My reasoning behind rejecting that usage of authority is that if we use that and the other definition (the one I accept about authority, mentioned earlier in the thread) then it is a fairly meaningless word it seems.

Edit: it seems I have fucked up. The definition of authority I accept is not in this thread, but the "authority" one.