Asklemmy

44173 readers

1451 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Who watches the watchmen? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, I'm not talking about the movie/show The Watchmen. I'm referring to the ancient philosophical question "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" or "who watches the watchmen". Go read up on that elsewhere.

For those of you who don't know and need a summary here, it's a question often posed in reference to the fact that the person or people in charge of making sure the rules are honored have nothing preventing them from disobeying the rules. There's never anything preventing the person guarding your treasure from stealing some of the treasure, for example.

What's the best remedy to this that you can think of?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you give a link or description how anarchy counts be implement in a easy there is resilient to a subverted centralization of power that does not truly on an active majority?

Because we don't have that, sadly. And I've never seen a concept that takes a silent and passive majority into consideration.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Dual-power structures, consensus-based democracy, and federated communes. Between those three are most of your answers.

And obviously we don't have the conditions necessary for anarchism at present, or we'd already be living it.

[–] Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yay a rabbit hole! Thanks for the key words :)

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

No problem!

Honestly, one of the best introductions to anarchism is The Conquest of Bread by Petr Kropotkin. It's a century old and still very relevant and approachable. You can find it for free on The Anarchist Library.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

And one thing to understand about anarchism is that it’s very much a goal oriented philosophy more than most other political philosophies. What that means is that you get a lot of different approaches and concepts from people trying different things to attempt to achieve similar goals. And this often involves practical differences between different situations. Rojava is necessarily going to do things differently from how the maknovists did things and they’re both very different from how some punks who bought some land for a commune in the American Midwest will handle it.