It’s worth noting that the Zapatistas aren’t an anarchist group and make no claim to being one. They do have a non-centralized leadership structure of elders who enforce a “restorative justice” system that forces people who perpetrate crimes to do community service. This does require a form of tribunal that local leaders manage.
But, to be clear, all this requires hierarchy, authority, and coercion in ways that most anarchists would reject. Which is the core of the issue.
You say “invent a scenario” as if people don’t use violence to get what they want all the time.
You can’t “move on without them” if they refuse to leave and continue recidivate. How do you deal with such a person in your ideal, anarchist society? It seems like your solution is to just pretend it wouldn’t be a problem, which is absurd on its face. You’re basically saying no one would decide to steal your food because everyone would just make their own instead. History shows that being incredibly unlikely.
How do you distinguish between tribal organization and anarchist society. Both are small communities that are “self governing.” What is the key difference in your mind?
And if they refuse to leave? If they simply take your things by violence? What then?
Historically, the answer is to have them lynched, which does solve the problem, but I think most reasonable people would agree that isn’t something we want to bring back.
And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
I think this is the part I get hung up on. The way this has historically been handled is lynchings. The town thinks you murdered those kids? They lynch you. The town drunk says he saw you doing devil worship? Lynched. You piss off someone with more social capital than you? Another lynching.
While I agree that this is self-ordering in some sense, I don’t find it to be morally acceptable. Justice requires systematics that anarchy simply can’t provide. And while no justice system is perfect, I think we can all agree that going back to lynchings is probably not the right direction.
I think that you’re not wrong, but the historical way that these societies have handled antisocial behavior is via lynchings. I don’t know that this model works if you don’t bring back lynchings, which I personally find unpalatable.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
What happens when someone selfishly refuses to contribute to the common good? Or worse, actively attempts to disrupt it?
Ah, yes, I forgot. Those two famously still in power people… checks notes… Barak Obama and Joe Biden.
If I take a cigarette, remove the tobacco, and put it in a pipe and smoke it, did it produce cigarette smoke or pipe tobacco smoke?
If I set up a condenser, and capture a bunch of cigarette smoke in the air from someone who’s smoking, and then dry that and light it on fire, is that cigarette smoke or cigarette smoke smoke?
I think this is more a taxonomy question than anything, and the answer depends on the above questions, lol.
So, it depends on what you mean by “real.”
There was a bill that got integrated into the NDAA that allowed for increased technology sharing and network communication between the US and Israeli militaries.
While I agree it’s not good, I don’t know that it’s even close to the “full integration” that a lot of the media has catastrophicized it as.
Here’s the wiki article for it, if you want to actually see what it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Israel_FUTURES_Act
Why not just spin up a VM? It’s a rebuild of a game from 1996. It can’t be that heavy. Just spin up an Ubuntu VM and call it a day. Takes, like, 20min max.
Is your definition of neoliberal “anyone who doesn’t agree with me on 100% of issues?”
If not, can you give examples of issues that someone could disagree with you on which would not get them branded as a “neoliberal”?
Or, they do super well by beating people up and taking their things? The person who happily takes from those weaker than them is often not terribly bothered by you giving them the cold shoulder. And they probably have their own coterie of hangers-on to provide them companionship. How do you handle such a person, since simple disfellowship is insufficient?