Anarchist Discussion Forums

In my reading of the piece/site it is expressly an American idea [these alternative courts]. Certainly I couldn't find any such apparatus in Europe (barring political &amp; Union in house 'courts'/hearings). <br> <br>Is this just because Europe is more 'settled' i.e. stagnant, or is it that counter-political movements have largely become more &amp; more mainstream (French, German etc). Though, bear in mind the German Green Party's drift to the right [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] <br> <br> <br>As such, is this useful for anarchists in general? Obviously, it is something to avoid &amp; be wary of, but not sure where you are going with it? <br> <br>(and no, you're not being paranoid. Much of what that site said made sense, and I recognised from other places as well)

I was also wondering if anyone else would take this ball and run with it. I guess I should write something. <br> <br>And I have had something on my mind regarding courts. <br> <br>In my reply to Kevin's opening post, I asked him if rejection of courts could be used as an organizing tactic. <br> <br>"Could your [Kevin's] idea of 'deadlock-and-hash-out' form the basis of a resistance to the policies of existing governments (primarily courts in this example)? Again, it seems to me that rejecting the final say of an existing arbitrary authority in favor of 'deadlock' and 'societal interaction' 'sends the message' that no side should have the former power, including those who now claim it to themselves. Instead, the issues in dispute should be discussed by the community, bringing it into the realm of political organizing and mobilization. The discussion approach seems more anarchistic than legal jousting." <br> <br>My idea is that court proceedings and decisions can be used as a platform for conversation and discussion. Of course, ignoring or simply speaking against a court isn't going to make them disappear overnight (and in places like India it can get you put in jail, as with [url=http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12582]http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12582[/url] ). But some court cases may provide a conversational "in" for anarchists, just as election season does. <br> <br>What I think needs to be _added_ is that anarchist opposition to this kind of decision-making applies to the established institutions of the state AND to the fledgling "courts" of the extremist Right in the U.S. I have recently been reading about the "Patriot movement" in this country and was reminding of this court discussion when reading about the extreme Right's "common law courts". These folks paint themselves as "anti-government" and reject established courts. But in reality they are in favor of very small states, often imagined to be no larger than a U.S. county, so long as they and their brethren are the undisputed rulers. For years now they have been setting up "alternative" courts where full "citizenship" applies only to white, Christian men. They then use the proceedings to (try to) "use these courts to declare themselves outside the jurisdiction of federal and state laws, issue harassing liens against the property of political opponents, and proclaim their right to arrest, judge, and even kill their opponents." <br> <br>This does not sound like anything we would favor. But I thought it would be important to mention. Anarchists (or any anti-authoritarians) who wish to challenge the legitimacy of courts (as Kevin has described the challenge) would do well to make it clear to people that they are NOT asking for authoritarianism in smaller jurisdictions. Furthermore, if an anarchist anti-court meme grew in popularity, proponents would have to also be clear that they are just as opposed to these counter-courts. <br> <br>In resisting the proto-fascist elements, people on the left (broadly understood to include anarchist organizers) might have to keep an eye on "common law courts" which could decide to "convict" activists (possibly in absentia) and send out executioners. It might also be necessary to prevent such courts or analogous authoritarian institutions from taking advantage of a post-state "political vacuum". And even if such bodies are not formally organized in the future, most communities will still have _a few_ people who refuse to compromise on what they see as rights and "just" powers given to them by God. (Which brings us back to the topic that started this whole matter.) <br> <br>For more details about these "common law courts", see [url=http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ57ComnLaw.html]http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ57ComnLaw.html[/url] . That's where I got the above quote. And the larger essay I've been reading is _Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism: An Exegesis_ by David Neiwert. He's a liberal, but the essay is still interesting (especially section 11, [url=http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_08_17_dneiwert_archive.html#106144904143452241]http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_08_17_dneiwert_archive.html#106144904143452241[/url] , which goes into the psychology of authoritarianism). I may even bring up some of his concepts here in later messages, if that is alright. <br> <br>Comments? Questions? Am I too paranoid? <br> <br>

I feel like Van Heisling putting this worthy thread to death! <br> <br>Apologies [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

*shameless bump to gather more input*

An interesting discussion, from both Kevin and GK4 (btw, I always remember that a storm trooper in Star Wars was called GK421 or something similar- the first guy to be taken out on the road to rescuing the princess. No comparison, merely triggered a child-hood memory [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]) <br> <br> <br>Not to reply in detail over points, but a suggestion over the 'jury' set-up. I'm not going to touch upon the coercive side and non-obeyance yet, as will wait for more discussion. <br>I always imagined, in these situations, two possibilities not mentioned: <br> <br>Firstly, a community based approach, akin to the ancient Forum- both plaintiffs come before the community, and put forth their position. Obviously, some parts of the community would support either side, some would be neutral. In cases of personal grievance (e.g Bob vrs Jill in the raincoat debacle of 2012) most would be neutral. Neutrality, I've always thought, is a better indication of the seriousness &amp; level of input needed by a community, than the act itself. If most of the community remains neutral (not to say doesn't care- I'm not fully endorsing the 'logger-heads view', see later) then the parties involved must see that it is only an egotistical conflict, not worthy of more time. In this manner, both sides would (I [i]think[/i]) feel slightly silly in that they might re-consider their conflict. <br> <br>The second proposition is a little more contentious. Again, a set-up that allows arbitration in light of direct democracy- the old 'non-permanent position of adjudication'. i.e. having a council (not centralised- maybe an environmental, social, economic etc council, all independent) made up of say seven (to give it political breadth without stagnation) individuals with their own biases etc. These seven would argue amongst themselves the case and formulate a 'best' response. Of course, this leads to a lot of politics and the possibility of inter-faction fighting. However, these positions would change (every year- every two, who knows?) and thus reflect the overall concerns of the community. I suggest this as the first is rather cumbersome in time constraints. <br> <br>Both of these don't have to rest on authority or coercion, but I can fully see the problems perhaps inherent in them (esp. the second) <br> <br>Secondly, on a more present day practical note, the whole question of tying up court rooms &amp; stagnation is [i]already used[/i] most notably by big business- only they can afford to maintain the lawyers fees! Tobacco giants (B.A.T etc), McDonalds, E$$o and others have always used this because they know stagnation is better than legislation (and more cost effective) in some cases. (Famously in the McLibal trial it backfired, but mostly it doesn't). As such I would grave concerns about trying to use it as a tactic- it simply isn't available to the average joe. <br> <br>I'll be watching this thread- have other questions, but I'll halt now to stop a long block of txt! (Especially say environmental concerns where a minority would have an intractable position against a majority or experts versus 'lay-people')

[color=green] Does your criticism also extend to juries (that is, decision-making bodies of randomly-selected members of the community)? A jury decision doesn't even have to be only what one side wants. It could be (and would likely often be) some kind of a compromise, but one carrying the moral weight of a cross-section of the community. Yet, is this still too narrow a basis for legitimacy? </font color=green> <br> <br>This is a good question, as I didn't make myself clear enough. Yes, I do think my criticism would apply to juries as well. I understand that the determinations of a jury need not necessarily be one-side, nor must those of a single judge for that matter. But my focus is to remove society from the role of enforcing these determinations at all. I do think that folks could (imo should) take an active role in discussing conflicts and offering up advice and services to resolve them. Toward that purpose a jury could convene and attempt to come up with a possible resolution, but the decision would be non-enforced. The fact that the jury came to the decision would mean nothing more than the fact that a very small cross-section of the community has come to a given conclusion. It would still be up to the two parties to decide whether or not to agree with the conclusion as neither would have the moral weight or the "legitimate" consent of the society to proceed without the agreement of the other. <br> <br>[color=green] I would like to clarify what you meant when you wrote "it may be better for the society at large, and in the long term even the individuals in those parties, for them to remain dead-locked as long as possible." Are you are suggesting that some fiat decision not be rendered quickly so that "societal interaction", organizing, and long-term discussion within that community has a chance to hash things out? </font color=green> <br> <br>That is something I was trying to convey in another part of the post, and I think it is important so I don't want to disregard it. Also important, I think, is to remove some of the emphasis we place in regards to these conflicts. Too often a system bent on enforcing conflict resolution tends to demonize those whose claims go unrecognized. If one party has their claim dismissed by some formal institution, they are then double-whammied with a social stigma of having wasted everyones time with "frivolous" proceedings. But as we know these conflicts are not a matter of winners and losers, but of failures in the social relations themselves to provide for the diverse needs and interests of both parties. In a way whenever a conflict occurs it means that the system has failed both parties already, regardless of how the resolution proceeds. Too often the "winner takes all" mentality crops up even amongst anarchists who already recognise this, and giving a judgment the weight of the entire group (society) as a whole seems to solidify this unfortunate conception. Internally, we all know that a judge is just a single person, a jury just a small group of people, but we tend to forget this and lend them far more authority than any of them merit as anything but symbols. We need to remember that no one speaks for the society itself, and no one should claim to. <br> <br>But what I'd been refering to above was actually an idea I'm toying with that by devaluing these "enforced resolution" methods we might be aiding the society-at-large in a number of indirect ways. One such effect is that while these two groups are dead-locked, essentially unable to meet their needs and desires in this context, the rest of society will continue to function, grow and maintain their relations. Indeed, even the individuals involved in the conflict will begin to move around it to find new sources of desire fulfillment for these and other claims. Thus, conflict itself would be devalued in comparison to cooperation, those groups who more closely and regularly cooperate rather than conflict will out-pace those who refuse to compromise and sit dead-locked. <br> <br>[color=green] You write that "such dead-locks would lead to a reduced ability to meet the needs and desires of these groups who are acting in anti-social ways, while comparatively increasing this economic efficiency for groups willing to compromise." Is this a reference to some kind of economic disassociation from (boycott of) the "anti-social" party? </font color=green> <br> <br>No, I think economic disassociation is far too harsh to proceed with merely because two groups both stand by their claims over time. In my opinion, that would be something to seek in this context only after one of these groups takes aggressive action against the lives of the individuals in another. My referance was as you indicated below and I explained above, to the relative stagnation of the groups who dead-lock, while they remain unable to resolve their disputes other groups who continue to cooperate will have a relative economic and/or social advantage. <br> <br>[color=green] OR, are you suggesting that socially-cooperative parties gain "economic efficiency" relative to anti-social parties because it takes (wastes) a lot of effort to be anti-social? </font color=green> <br> <br>Exactly. It often doesn't seem like a wasted effort if you focus only on the conflict, and in their tunnel vision people often do. However, relative to the society these parties might as well be walking backwards. I think that in the vast majority of cases if I had a dead-locked claim, or was member of a party that proceeded with a dead-locked claim, then I would want to either drop it, seek an alternate method, or compromise. I might even leave the group to proceed on its own if the other members refused to move on. In those rare cases where the claim was so important to me that I opted to continue to uphold it, I think the economic disadvantage would seem a small price to pay. <br> <br> <br>[color=green] This idea of denying _everyone_ an "official endorsement" of their claim suggests intriguing repercussions beyond simple interpersonal dispute resolution in some anarchist future....a movement that takes this principle to heart could use it against existing courts, the police/military, and electoral "representation"... Again, it seems to me that rejecting the final say of an existing arbitrary authority in favor of "deadlock" and "societal interaction" "sends the message" that no side should have the former power, including those who now claim it to themselves. Instead, the issues in dispute should be discussed by the community, bringing it into the realm of political organizing and mobilization. The discussion approach seems more anarchistic than legal jousting. </font color=green> <br> <br>I hadn't actually considered these more practical applications to our current anti-state movements. That sounds cool! <br> <br>[color=green] Also, have you considered the relationship between this denial of the "justice" of an "official endorsement" and the spectrum of tactics that deny the "justice" of police and military force? I see a parallel between the refusal to match lawyers against lawyers to seek judicial grants of favor, and the refusal to match arms with arms to seek Fortune's (or God's) favor in war. Your description of "social defense" -- "includ[ing] direct physical defense, dialogue, disassociation, or whatever else the circumstance calls for" -- seems to parallel the spectrum of non-military techniques of resistance to military force. </font color=green> <br> <br>Yes, as folks around here probably know I'm wary of violent or even broadly forceful approaches to anarchism. I do not reject either out of hand from an ideological standpoint, as I could imagine scenarios in which those oppressed simply lack the time or capability to adopt a viable set of alternatives in their direct defense. However, I have yet to be convinced that such tactics are generally necessary even in defense, and I think they become even less so in the basic propagation and fulfillment of general anarchic ideals. Besides, imho the human costs are simply too high to proceed with violent revolutionary tactics when our ability to predict the outcome is generally limited. <br> <br>I also think that a consistent critique of the kinds of enforcement advocated by capitalists and statists requires not only a strict rejection of the methods relevant to the critique, but also a rejection of the mindset that compels these methods. <br> <br>[color=green] The concept seems applicable to resistance in the present, and not just a method to be used for dispute resolution "after the Revolution(TM)". Am I on track here? </font color=green> <br> <br>Two steps ahead of me, but you look on track from back here [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Anyway, I'm playing around with a couple possible criticisms of this method that I can't get my head around yet. Once I've figured them out as valid criticisms or mistakes in my thought process I'll post my take, or maybe someone else will bring them up in the meantime.

Hi, Kevin. I'm sorry this reply is so long, but I have a few questions for clarification and elaboration. <br> <br>In the first part of your argument, your criticism of courts seems to center on the role of a judge (or whatever term is used) with decision-making authority. Does your criticism also extend to juries (that is, decision-making bodies of randomly-selected members of the community)? A jury decision doesn't even have to be only what one side wants. It could be (and would likely often be) some kind of a compromise, but one carrying the moral weight of a cross-section of the community. Yet, is this still too narrow a basis for legitimacy? <br> <br>The second part of your argument has to do with situations in which a proposed resolution is rejected by one or more of the disputing parties. I would like to clarify what you meant when you wrote "it may be better for the society at large, and in the long term even the individuals in those parties, for them to remain dead-locked as long as possible." Are you are suggesting that some fiat decision not be rendered quickly so that "societal interaction", organizing, and long-term discussion within that community has a chance to hash things out? This would be a process the opposite of what we often see when a court sets a decision in stone indefinitely. Such declarations of policy often age poorly as society changes. <br> <br>You write that "such dead-locks would lead to a reduced ability to meet the needs and desires of these groups who are acting in anti-social ways, while comparatively increasing this economic efficiency for groups willing to compromise." Is this a reference to some kind of economic disassociation from (boycott of) the "anti-social" party? Would it extend to the ideological supporters of the person actually involved in the dispute? OR, are you suggesting that socially-cooperative parties gain "economic efficiency" relative to anti-social parties because it takes (wastes) a lot of effort to be anti-social? <br> <br>So much for clarification. Now for elaboration: Have you thought about what your idea would mean for other aspects of society and social change? <br> <br>This idea of denying _everyone_ an "official endorsement" of their claim suggests intriguing repercussions beyond simple interpersonal dispute resolution in some anarchist future. I think someone could take your argument a couple steps further on the way to that future. If no side can claim the community's moral endorsement by fiat, and thus no one can use such an endorsement to justify the supremacy of their preferred claims, a movement that takes this principle to heart could use it against existing courts, the police/military, and electoral "representation". Victorious parties in courts, battlefields, and elections use the outcome as "mandates" for their agendas. <br> <br>(By the way, it seems to me that these all seem to connect back to the notion of divine favor. This ultimate judicial authority "must never" be challenged by mere mortals. And this claim allows the victors to justify silencing the opposition in the name of and "on behalf of" the "ultimate force in the universe".) <br> <br>Could your idea of "deadlock-and-hash-out" form the basis of a resistance to the policies of existing governments (primarily courts in this example)? Again, it seems to me that rejecting the final say of an existing arbitrary authority in favor of "deadlock" and "societal interaction" "sends the message" that no side should have the former power, including those who now claim it to themselves. Instead, the issues in dispute should be discussed by the community, bringing it into the realm of political organizing and mobilization. The discussion approach seems more anarchistic than legal jousting. <br> <br>Also, have you considered the relationship between this denial of the "justice" of an "official endorsement" and the spectrum of tactics that deny the "justice" of police and military force? I see a parallel between the refusal to match lawyers against lawyers to seek judicial grants of favor, and the refusal to match arms with arms to seek Fortune's (or God's) favor in war. Your description of "social defense" -- "includ[ing] direct physical defense, dialogue, disassociation, or whatever else the circumstance calls for" -- seems to parallel the spectrum of non-military techniques of resistance to military force. <br> <br>Finally, your concept's challenge to the "legitimacy" of "mandates" for the agendas of elected "representative" probably does not need elaboration on an anarchist website. <br> <br>It seems to me that all three sets of approaches seek to deny adversaries the moral authority (legitimacy) suggested by judicial victory, military victory, and electoral victory, respectively. The concept seems applicable to resistance in the present, and not just a method to be used for dispute resolution "after the Revolution(TM)". Am I on track here? <br> <br>All in all, a thought-provoking piece, Kevin. Thanks for posting it. Sorry to hear about your hand. <br> <br>

The following was written a couple of weeks ago in response to a discussion folks here were having about people's courts. My hand was too messed up to complete it at the time and it probably deserves a seperate thread due to the shift of subjet matter anyway. <br> <br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br>Folks on flag often refer to courts in anarchism. I'm wary of the word "court," just because its definition could mislead people into believing that we are refering to a judiciary, and thus law. <br> <br>It is my belief, and I recognize that not all anarchists will agree with this, that while advisors (facilitators of conflict resolution if you will) are a healthy thing, those people should never have entitlement to resolution enforcement power, i.e. the power given to act as judges, arbiters, adjudicators, or whatever term one uses to describe individuals who go beyond mere advisement and are given the power to enforce "settlements" of disputes. <br> <br>I know that some would argue that so long as the arbitration is entered into voluntarily by both sides enforcement is consistent with principles of freedom. However, I think there are at least two problems with this position. First, superficial agreement does not entail that those who enter into such a court would actually be doing so voluntarily. Many might be compelled to do so because there are no viable alternatives left open to them. To say that the enforced resolution is then "just" because individuals have voluntarily accepted the procedure is to stretch the concept of voluntary until it no longer has the compelling meaning of a free relationship. <br> <br>Second, and more importantly I think, no one should ever be compelled to submit to a resolution they believe is unjust. Many would undoubtedly enter into such a court believing that because their position is just they will be granted a decision in their favor, but if for whatever reason the decision is not made in their favor (perhaps the judge feels both positions are "just," or that justice is irrelevant to the decision and takes other factors into account, or was bribed), then they will be forced to submit to a decision they believe is unjust or to revolt against the decision and face forceful retaliation due to the judge's ability to enforce it. Furthermore, because these judges would have a legitimate recourse to forceful resolution, those who rebel against the decision would always be at the disadvantage of working against what is in effect a societal institution. <br> <br>Thus, I believe that while non-forceful resolutions should be actively and readily sought out, and people known to be good at facilitating such resolutions would be in great demand, these individuals or groups should be given no executive power above and beyond that which everyone else in the society has legitimate recourse to. Whatever they judge, or whatever advice they give if a judgment is not forthcoming, it should be merely that, an opinion of a third party aimed at resolving the conflict peacefully. <br> <br>Of course many would argue that such conditions would lead to dead-locks and occasional abandonment of peaceful resolution processes. I believe both issues merit consideration. <br> <br>In the case of dead-locks I have two tentative opinions. First, that a dead-lock is in many cases better than an enforced resolution. Just because a society endorses resolution enforcement does not guarentee that the resolutions themselves will always be desirable, it could at times be worse for all involved when something is forced to resolution rather than not. Second, and again more importantly, that for those parties in conflict who are unable or unwilling to compromise without being forced into resolutions it may be better for the society at large, and in the long term even the individuals in those parties, for them to remain dead-locked as long as possible. <br> <br>I know this sounds counter-intuitive to some. Still, I believe that compromise, regardless of which party has the "superior" claim or whether or not sure claims even exist, is a hallmark of societal interactions. All societies require people willing to voluntarily compromise on some level, the alternative is either complete isolation (no society) or eternal conflict that even if non-violent would total stagnate human interation (again, no society). Thus, even if it means that neither party will get everything it wants, it is generally better for them to accept some compromise then nothing at all. Furthermore, societal interaction is aided through such compromises when they are not enforced, because they allow for cheap and easy conflict resolution. <br> <br>Contrary to this, those who refuse to compromise are acting in an anti-social manner, even if they do so for "just" reasons. Thus, while it is important to respect those who stand by their position, I myself would do so in a number of cases, the society is under no obligation to facilitate either party. In effect, such dead-locks would lead to a reduced ability to meet the needs and desires of these groups who are acting in anti-social ways, while comparitively increasing this economic efficiency for groups willing to compromise. It would have an evolutionary style consequence, those types of claims and groups and individuals would be devalued in the society, thus increasing the overall social stability and efficiency over generations. <br> <br> <br>Then there is the second concern, that of groups entirely neglecting peaceful resolution in favor of conflict. First, I don't think anything is necessarily lost here by rejecting legitimate societal enforcement. I don't view open conflict between two groups as by default any worse than an enforced resolution in terms of the claim each groups makes. In both cases one group will have their liberty and claims violated to allow for the claims of the other group, and in both cases force will be used to do so. The only difference in these cases is that in open conflict neither group is necessarily given endorsement by the society at large, whereas enforced resolutions incorporate legitimate suppression into the very fabric of society, making everyone in these societies somewhat complicit. <br> <br>However, I do think that such cases of open conflict could at least be [i]minimized[/i]. One method for reducing open conflict might be for other groups in the society to have a custom of coming to the aid of any group that is in the process of defending itself from the aggresive force of another in cases of a broken dead-lock. Such aid could include direct physical defense, dialogue, disassociation, or whatever else the circumstance calls for. If both parties know at the outset that regardless of how "rational" or "just" they percieved their claims to be the use of aggressive force on the part of their party would not be legitimated, then they would have an active disincentive to resort to it for fear that others will come to the aid of those they attack. This would lead the parties back to either the compromise, the dead-lock, or continued negotiation of their claim. <br> <br>So a quick recap. I don't think any institution or individual should be given legitimate power of enforcement in a society. Rather, anarchists would be better served to remove themselves from the process of legitimating force altogether, and instead concentrate on providing advice and facilitating the non-forceful resolution of conflicts. In those cases where one party seeks to enforce their claim against another, anarchists could defend whoever finds themselves the subject of this enforcement, regardless of the supposed validity of the claims of either party. <br> <br> <br>As a final note, some might think that this strategy basically resolves to protecting the "status quo." But it is incorrect to assume that because a particular party currently employs their claim that they are being aggressed against when another party makes a counter claim and acts in violation of the original. Rather, neither party is resorting to claim enforcement until one or both begin to physically deter others from fulfilling their own claims. Thus, the deadlock starts the moment that a counter claim is expressed. At that point neither party is legitimated in proceeding with employment of their claim, they are both stuck in a dead-lock until a joint resolution is reached, or someone gives up a claim, or someone attempts to enforce a claim. The status quo can be challenged here because no assumption is made that the party with the original claim has the default "legitimate" recourse to claim enforcement. <br> <br>Edit - Having just read jacob's reply in "Property vs Possession" over on the anarchism 101 forum, I felt I should note that if someone wished the above ideas could be modified to incorporate his own. For example, instead of having other parties come to the immediate defense of anyone who breaks a deadlock, they could wait until one party makes a disproportionate employment of their own claim contrary to that of another party. <br> <br>It is also important to note that the defense I'm refer to is not actually a defense of claims, it is a defense of the individuals making the claims, the claims are only being defending indirectly, insofar as eliminating the individuals would also eliminate their claims.