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
[–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

Ah right, I guess I hadn't heard the name but I know the vague concept (imo it's a bad name because anarchy is usually democratic) Is it just the idea that instead of organising locally and then at larger and larger scales, you just have everyone everywhere voting without the intermediary steps? Even with the technology to do that, it seems like a bad idea.

When I say we would still enforce rules, I'm not saying we just ask nicely, there are still consequences for breaking rules and this person would have to face them. I'd say the idea that someone only responds to threats of violence is probably more a product of police almost exclusively using violence and violent threats. That said, it's not like violence is a tool we can't use, but I'm not well versed enough in the theory for community defense/justice to get into details.

Being idealistic is one thing, but there's plenty of us here who are actively building anarchist communities, I've been heavily involved in one myself. There's work that can be done to move things forwards, I hope we see something better in my time even if it's operating within/alongside the current system rather than replacing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    It's a fictional concept. Because it does rely on fantastically well integrated computers. But basically every matter of public interest gets loaded into a collectively accessible network that then sends out regular broadcasts with matters up for voting. Since the people in this scenario have networked implants they are constantly being polled for input on matters that match the criteria they have predefined. For a society changing decision it will surface for everyone, the more niche the topic the smaller the pool of people who are interested enough to venture an opinion. It would rely on universal acceptance of tech and some truly staggering intelligent systems to assess and surface matters that meet the thresholds of interest for each individual. Anything not explicitly prohibited is up to personal discretion until it becomes a matter that prompts a vote and is legislated. It would be a crazy system to live under for the first few years and would gradually become more livable. Also even in this fictional scenario the need for people to safeguard the sanctity of the voting apparatus is recognised and bad actors are anticipated.

    As far as setting up an anarchic state I just don't see it scaling particularly well. Homogenous ideologically aligned groups would seem eminently workable but what happens when you get a group that wants to live in a way that is morally antithetical to the overall community? A sect of people who want to live under an authoritarian dictatorship for example, are their wishes invalid because they don't align with the larger social zietgeist? Who gets to enforce their will upon them? Who polices the worst extremes of this sort of self selected community to ensure that the only people it encompasses are those who have given their free and informed consent? Is the autonomy of the community embraced, supported, tolerated or ignored by its neighbours? How does it stave off the worst depredations of capitalist cultures it competes with, as soon as a collectivist culture emerges it is treated as an existential threat by any and all capitalists until it is destroyed or co-opted. Like I said I am not opposed to any of this, the worst excesses of the "Free Market Economy" are only going to make life worse for everyone over the next few decades and I believe that as a species we will need to come up with better ways to live. But I can't help but feel we are going to see more to achieve that from violent uprising and political unrest than from any aspirational peaceful movements or demonstrations of a better path forward. Also alternative governmental structures are going to need to become a lot more approachable to Joe public. Right now a lot of more mainstream people are put off by the people who are advocating for change. It is after all a lot easier to pick up on the real or imagined hypocrisy and double standards of people who you don't align with ideologically, such is the clannish nature of human beings.

  • source
  • parent