Anti-government extremism is not one coherent ideology or organisation. It can encompass sovereign citizens, conspiracy theorists and others who come to see government institutions as fundamentally corrupt, illegitimate or actively working against ordinary citizens.

(emphasis mine) shit cuz they're onto me :p

Our research points towards an approach known as procedural justice. “Procedurally just” governance is about how governments exercise their authority. It means treating citizens with respect, making decisions fairly and without bias to prevent benefiting one special-interest group over another, being transparent about motives for legislation or new government processes. It also means giving people meaningful opportunities to have their voices heard.

Importantly, our study found that when people perceived government as more procedurally just they reported lower levels of anger and were less likely to perceive the government as illegitimate.

This relationship was evident among both conspiracy believers and non-believers. It means procedural justice shouldn’t be dismissed as merely good public relations. It potentially forms part of Australia’s strategy for preventing violent extremism.

[...]

Rather, governments need a two-track response. They need to identify and disrupt people moving towards violence. But they also need to reduce the conditions that can make that violence attractive in the first place. These include alienation, anger and a belief that public institutions exercise power without listening to people or treating them fairly and equally.

I thought this was a good and thoughtful piece to have been put out so soon after what appears to be an attempted political assassination of a politician who, near as I can tell, wanted more government transparency and accountability.

Not really a great sign of the times. With government building out some of the largest surveillance machines in the world I suspect we can conclude what the response will be. As the author highlights though, restoring trust and a sense of justice is more important to get back to a society where we feel our concerns can be dealt with non violently.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

In Australia we generally view government as our servants not masters. We don't elect a tyrant to rule us. We elect a local member who we can meet and talk to and ask for help with problems.

I disagree with my local member's politics but I don't regard him as a bad person or someone out to get me.

I really don't understand this. Any group of people living together inevitably creates rules and governance to serve their common interests. How are the roads going to be maintained and garbage collected without people contributing money into a pool and electing someone to administer it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    There is a cultural belief that we elect people and it's good and fine and works, but that's observably false. It's a fantasy idea of what government is supposed to be, not what it is in practice.

    The reaction to people wanting their "representatives" to actually represent them has been an increase in oppression, things like ramping up police violence and introducing anti-protest laws.

    The people in my community have been hospitalised, deported, raped and even killed because they wanted things to be better. We've gone through all the officially sanctioned channels, we've used protest to make ourselves heard, but we're only being beaten.

    How are roads going to be maintained and garbage collected?

    As you said, any group of people are going to create rules, but they don't need to create hierarchical government to effectively enforce those rules, or organise the day to day activities of society. We've organised without government plenty of times before.

    We're not just saying things purely out of anger, there's a massive amount of theory behind it. If you really do want to understand, then if recommend you read some of the anarchist faq or any leftist theory tbh. At the very least, you'll likely find the ideas interesting even if you don't agree with everything. I tend to find most people who seriously engage with these ideas agree with a good deal of them. All we're asking for is society to organise in a more just and equitable way, while disabling or limiting the avenues for corruption to take hold.

    I once thought the same as you, we're literally drowned in propaganda from birth so it's extremely hard to break out from the dominant ideology, but there are better ways if you decide to evaluate the alternatives on their own merits and not pre-concieved notions of what they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    I want to live in a society where we are least likely to suffer at the hands of despots. There is no realistic path away from democratic society that doesn't return us ultimately into the hands of kings and warlords. Democracy is imperfect but it's the best chance we have to live the lives we want.

    Not opposed to Marxist critiques of capitalism but left and right, authoritarians and anarchists both form a horseshoe. The end game for either tends to be a single party state controlled through force by a corrupt elite.

    Social democracy or democratic socialism can both be made to work. Libertarianism and syndicalism deny human nature and experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    I'm really not sure how anarchy leads to any kind of state when it's specifically stateless. I'd say it's far more resistant to corruption and centres around a more robust and empowering form of democracy than any representational system, which is inherently corruptible.

    Horshoe theory is silly

  • source
  • parent