Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

That is not the real test:

The real test is:

Your friend’s daughter had her drink spiked and then was raped while passed out by a bunch of frat guys.

If you believe that you and your buddies should get together with guns and baseball bats and go to the Frat house and exact justice/revenge on them, then you might really be an anarchist.

All the situations outlined are nice and good. Self-organization should be the default mode. However, there are situations where you need someone that can use violence to enforce justice. For most people, that would be the state.

View on HN

The state doesn't enforce anything resembling justice for rape. Rape is rarely prosecuted and difficult to prove in a court of law.

The effectiveness of the state’s enforcement is orthogonal to whether you believe it is their responsibility.

Do you believe that the state should be trying to enforce justice for rape, or do you think it should be the responsibility of a “self-organizing” posse?

If we agree that it is the state’s responsibility, then we can talk about ways to improve it. But then, you are already not an anarchist.

I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate.

The problematic parts come up with how you pay the judge (stealing from 3rd parties), jailers etc and much the other stuff the state does. It would probably be more pragmatic to basically privatize the judge/court.

> I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate.

So again, think of murder instead of rape. The victim isn't going to enforce a right to justice - they already failed to do so. Now what? Do you just shrug and say "you should have defended yourself better"? In that environment, can you not see how much it would absolutely suck to be a loner who is both physically and financially weak?

Worse: Can you not see that you are in fact physically, financially, and socially weak? You're going to be the prey. So think very carefully before you advocate this "utopia".

The state in this case is merely your select buddies, who also murder and rob others and especially the weak.

While I acknowledge the difficulties in justice with murder you're just arguing over which group of buddies is the bestest, and picking the biggest murderer of them all. Not seeing any improvement.

All right, fine. She was murdered instead.

Now, who do you think should deal with it, your buddies or the state?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com