It’s a fine answer and I agree with it, except: sometimes one community wrongs another, and in precolonial Southeast Asia, those wrongs were rectified by headhunters. Now, two communities might mutually agree to allow headhunters jurisdiction, but: maybe it makes more sense for communities to agree to use an adversarial court system and a network of bar associations. At the very least, unlike the justice of headhunters, it separates the legal advocate for community justice (the prosecutor) from the walking beatstick (the cop)
that requires laws, and as an anarchist, I oppose laws. it’s one thing to have a council of judges, but it’s another to have immutable laws written by people who weren’t involved with the circumstances at hand deciding for those people what justice is.
Thanks it’s interesting history, and a good question to ask an anarchist.
I’d be really surprised if you get an actual answer though. I asked him in another thread what his idea of justice is and all he said was “well it’s not locking people in cages”. So useful. What a platform…
Ultimately I know that no matter who comes out on top here, it ain’t gunna be anarchists (pretty much by definition)
there would be no lawyers or courts. there would be communities.
my ancestors used a mandau for this kind of community justice. is that acceptable for you?
I don’t presume to tell you and your community how to deal with your problems.
It’s a fine answer and I agree with it, except: sometimes one community wrongs another, and in precolonial Southeast Asia, those wrongs were rectified by headhunters. Now, two communities might mutually agree to allow headhunters jurisdiction, but: maybe it makes more sense for communities to agree to use an adversarial court system and a network of bar associations. At the very least, unlike the justice of headhunters, it separates the legal advocate for community justice (the prosecutor) from the walking beatstick (the cop)
that requires laws, and as an anarchist, I oppose laws. it’s one thing to have a council of judges, but it’s another to have immutable laws written by people who weren’t involved with the circumstances at hand deciding for those people what justice is.
Except that’s exactly what you’ve been doing. Sheesh.
if you think the United States is your community, I invite you to go to rural Indiana, Louisiana, or California, and act exactly like you have been.
Just want to leave this here so others don’t need to find it
Mandau[1] is the traditional weapon of the Dayak people of Borneo.
(contextually: it is associated with headhunting, which is complicated but can be thought of as a type of community justice)
Thanks it’s interesting history, and a good question to ask an anarchist.
I’d be really surprised if you get an actual answer though. I asked him in another thread what his idea of justice is and all he said was “well it’s not locking people in cages”. So useful. What a platform…
Ultimately I know that no matter who comes out on top here, it ain’t gunna be anarchists (pretty much by definition)
Honestly as a socialist that sounds fucking awful. Sounds like a formula for people to be ruled by miniature cults.
Even if you truly believe this, the communities of fascists would just impose fascism on you.
this is an unsupported hypothesis. how would you test it?