Anarchy: A Temporary Condition

Yes but how do you know? Chernobyl was built poorly but it wasn't too bad until later on, and how can you tell if the other anarchist group doesn't let you in to see it?

What I'm wondering is how they got adequate information to justify intervening(Most likely by force) to stop this detrimental event from happening. It sheds some light on how this sort of society works when you get those particulars.

I want to know how they're going to intervene; wouldn't that involve imposing their will on others?

In anarchy, you're allowed to impose in reaction, but not in presumption.

And FWIW, keeping it hidden might well qualify as a hostile act when it comes to a nuclear reactor. I could certainly be convinced that was justified to seek information, and a refusal would be itself hostile.

edited 24th Jun '11 9:18:39 AM by blueharp

The way I've been seeing things argued- if they don't have the right search me because "I might be dangerous", then they don't have the right to inspect my plant (or my commune's plant, whatever) because "it might be dangerous." They'd have to wait until after it failed. It's not affecting them at all, yet, so it's not infringing on their rights. Until of course, it blowuptuates.

Even most anarchists can tell the difference between personal space and an industrial site.

Pretty much, yeah.

Searching your car/person/home for contraband is a no-no, but if you open up a chemical plant or a nuclear reactor, those that could be poisoned from it will demand guarantees that it won't.

I'm pretty sure the reaction would vary from community to community. Some would ignore it, some would get suspicious, get intel, and try to negotiate, and some would say "Fuck that noise" and slaughter the other commune.

Plus, how the fuck are a bunch of anarchists going to get the technical expertise and resources to build a nuclear power plant in the first place? Much less the leadership of that many people required to actually construct and operate it. That'd require.. A government?

So you accept the individuals right to soverignty but not the collevtives right to it?

It's the same issue. If you insist on snooping on my community because were doing something that might possibly affect you, you insist on snooping on those individuals involved. Of course, as Barkey said, that's pretty much moot because someone else is guaranteed because they'd say "Fuck that shit" and perform "Operation bomb the crap out of Wulf's commune." But wait, back up. How did they find out we were doing on it? Were they spying on us? If so, I'd consider that an act of aggression. Or at least, I could conceivably paint it that way. We bomb them first, say "they were spying on us! They had no business doing that, it was the only way we could get the spy for sure!" or some equally bullshit story and go on about our business. Until the survivors either rebuild or go elsewhere, and convince them to bomb us back in retaliation. Then our survivors go somewhere else and bomb those guys back... and so on until everyone's dead. Or at least, in a constant state of fighting, if they weren't already.

edited 24th Jun '11 10:19:49 AM by Wulf

Isn't "Searching the neighbouring town in case they have a deathtrap powerplant that will kill us all" just a scaling up of "Searching a person's clothing in case they have a gun that they might kill us all with"? I mean, either way, you're invading a person/group's privacy in order to ensure your safety. The person/town might not even have a dangerous powerplant or gun, and in that case you both just shrug and go on your way.

It's just on a community scale not a personal one.

Kinda twisted reasoning to try to excuse people who are so indifferent to others around them that they want to secretly build a nuclear power reactor without assuring others that they're engaging in safe actions.

That's not being private, that's like excusing waving a gun around because of some misguided idea of it being a free right. Believe it or not, anarchists do not have to be stupid, they can be more nuanced about their principles than you think.

I wish one of the more articulate advocates of the philosophy could speak on the issue, but I guess you'll have to write one of them.

It's not like there's a consistent body that offers one position for anarchism, there are some who outright oppose all nuclear work, for various reasons.

edited 24th Jun '11 5:18:47 PM by blueharp

Anyway, the point about the nuclear plant is mental masturbation. No single community is gonna be able set up a nuclear power plant without cooperating with their neighbors to do it.

Greedy corporations aside, I don't think very nasty crap would happen at all: If the plant is run by the collective of its workers, they're going to live nearby the plant. It's on their self-interest to allow a meltdown to happen. Dumping nuclear waste would endanger them and their families. Building a nuclear plant wrong is thoroughly stupid.

A person carrying a weapon peacefully is not posing a threat. Building a patently unsafe power plant is more akin to discharging your weapon aimlessly in the middle of the city (dickish, possibly an aggression) than firearms carry.