[Anarchocommunist]

my question to other anarchists is, when we establish the widescale commune (be it based upon cities, counties, state or nation) how do we avoid mob rule and provide protection for the minority? it's simple to say that in an anarchist state that people would be taught that noone's needs are unimportant and not to place your own need in front of anothers. but even if this weren't a utopian pipe dream (albeit a necessary one) there will be the time before the generation who grew up in freedom. so what kinds of functions could we put in place to protect the few?

[TROI]

People's militia.

[Napuljun]

This is something very important, especially in our democracies, which in a democracy only the majority's call is listened to and the minorities are put aside. We need a stronger movment to help the minorities and only peole from the majority can help them. 'A people's Militia' maybe can do a work good but it is nearly impossible to create. A political party for the minorities is a good idea.

[Anarchocommunist]

i don't see how a people's militia would help anything. if anything it would make the mob rule problem worse. i also don't think parties are a good idea. i would rather people think about things on an idea basis, not a party line basis. also i think people may be confusing minority with racial minority. i'm talking minority like how socialists are a political minority. as well as ethnic minorities.

[Liberal]

Liberal Democracy is the one in which the majority rules, but the minority is protected. This is a deffinition by Giovanni Sartori. I agree with it. The minority rights can be protected more effectivly in a Liberal democratic state, then in no-state.

[CCJ]

Yes, that way we're ALL oppressed by the national government...if that isn't progress, WHAT IS?

[Kamil]

It's as simple as this. Eventually, after anarchist conditions and the anarchist way of life were to be permeated throughout generations, moral behaviour would ameliorate and would drastically diminish or dissipate hostile relations and "crime." Through education and lifestyle, peoples' relations with one another would ameliorate. If some epidemic were to arise of minorities being exploited, oppressed, or marginalized, it'd be an obligation for the federation of communes, the people, to put an end to the oppressive and exploitative relations. The people protect each other, they all constitute the peoples' militia. For marginalization, keep in mind that communal direct democracy is a method of organization, it is not imposed, you are not obliged to participate. Everyone is able to go their own seperate path.

[tuco]

my question to other anarchists is, when we establish the widescale commune (be it based upon cities, counties, state or nation) how do we avoid mob rule and provide protection for the minority?

This sounds a bit too much like the reincarnation of Leviathan.

Anyways, if minorities are properly armed, there really wouldn't be much of an incentive to attack them. However, people who would take part in attacks against minorities would be seen as threats by the rest of society. Non-aggressive members of that society may very well find it in their best interests to 'take care' of the troublemakers.

Also, lets not forget that people are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Should minorities feel threatened, they could pool their resources together and hire private security.

I doubt people would hold many grudges against certain groups, much less act on them, due to the fact that a great deal of tension stems from the fight for [political] power. I'm not saying that prejudices will be non existant in an anarchist society, they'll just be weaker and less widespread.