Sys, I had two primary reasons for posting the link. The first reason, which was of no major importance, was an attempt to counteract an argument promulgated by Cowboy JD in an earlier thread in which he seemed to believe because he had looked up the definition of anarchism in a dictionary he was proficient in claiming he knew all there needs to know about the subject. This minor purpose of the link was to show that anarchism is much more nuanced, more complex, and a more serious political theory than a dictionary definition could provide. I know that JD has several sycophants on this board who appear to hang onto his every word as if it is gospel, and I hoped they would read the link and discover there is much more to it than he supposes. As I said, this first purpose was of no major significance to me.
The second reason, which I realize was stupid on my part, was in the same thread I came by the notion that you were somewhat seriously interested. I say I was stupid because I have observed that your general MO is to ridicule, demean, criticize, etc. those political positions with which you disagree, as opposed to advocating positively for your position. You are not unique in that attitude; almost everybody that writes here uses the same technique. But for some strange reason I have always had the impression that you have never truly believed some of the things you have written, that you just enjoy trying to make your opponent squirm. I was of the opinion that you generally agreed with your left-leaning writings, but that you had never seriously contemplated the deeper meaning of what left-leaning ideas would achieve. I stupidly thought you were a rare left winger that sometimes could open his mind to other ways of thinking. So I posted the link, thinking you might enjoy reading it. But the first thing out of your mouth in reply was "this is Lord of the Rings territory," and I realized how wrong I was. I have little to no interest in tit-for-tat insults, a back and forth that is so common here. And so I saw no reason to reply, knowing full well what the thread would turn into. I'm sorry if I have disappointed you, but there are plenty of other people on this board with whom you can play the game.
But let me respond to your question, an answer I am sure will disappoint. You want to know how people in an anarchist society would protect themselves from crime, who would define crime, etc. Any society is ruled by laws, which are generally accepted practices. There doesn't need to be a legislated dictate from a governmental body for people to know not to kill, steal, rape, rob, etc. That is understood by any society that has ever existed. It would be no different in a society of people free from the oppression of a government. It's when people relinquish their liberty to a government that we see dictates that defy laws that are generally accepted by society without a government. What light bulbs we are allowed to own, how much water our toilets can flush, what herbs we can ingest into our own bodies, you get the picture. Laws exist in spite of the existence of a state. But how on Earth can you survive the cretins that defy natural laws? Don't we need a police force, how could we possibly survive without a law enforcement body? Well, an anarchist would say an individual in a free society would be on his own to take responsibility for his own protection. Just as one is responsible for securing his own food, clothing and shelter, so in a free society he would be responsible for his protection from criminals. The marketplace has performed admirably in every economic category, and this would be one more. I know you will find that unacceptable. But that's how it would work.
