• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        Typically community defense, which means there are already armed groups, they just autonomous groups of people ready to defend their own communities. Similar to the concept of minute men if you want to think broad strokes.

        • bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          2 days ago

          So you want a local conscript or volunteer militia? How about those local groups making alliances, sharing training, building up shared resources and infrastructure, a unified command, standardized equipment for better and more efficient defense?

          • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            So long as the local group autonomy is still respected that can work fine in theory. Once you start stripping groups of autonomy to make a beauracratic monster, you’ve lost the anarchism plot. A lot harder in practice to have a massive armed org that values that autonomy. Most of the time local groups will be linked to other groups. Just by group consensus, not by necessity because of course that too would not be anarchism.

              • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 days ago

                Im no historian but I think we’ve made some headway in technology that allows for quicker longer distance organization in the past 2000 years.

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  That gives even greater advantage to centralized bureaucracy. 2000 years ago armies could be independent weeks before anyone back in Rome knew what happened.

            • SolacefromSilence@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              2 days ago

              Sounds like a theoretical Libertarian trying to raise an army. Do you hand a copy of the NAP to just the volunteers or also to those you fight?

              • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 days ago

                If you cant tell anarchism from libertarianism, theres no intelectual basis to continue this conversation on. Which would explain why you set up a strawman with your second sentence.

                • SolacefromSilence@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  You got me, it seems I have not educated myself thoroughly enough.

                  Really though, if only the enlightened can see the light then it seems like it’s just an academic exercise or trolling people to advocate for ineffectual fringe theory.

                  You may be right, but also powerless.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        How do you propose to stop armed groups from forming?

        That’s not a reasonable argument. We already have large armed groups, and these are armies. And they already commit war crimes. If you don’t find armed groups forming acceptable, and you do not find the harm they cause acceptable, then you do not find what we have now acceptable.