[ZenoArrow]

> "that is not capitalism, its exploitation"

Let's put it like this. Imagine the Indonesian government didn't exist. What would the people be able to do to stop the environmental destruction? Would you advocate vigilante justice?

[talmand]

Without a structured government, then the people are the "government", so to speak, and vigilante justice would not be so vigilante.

[ZenoArrow]

> "vigilante justice would not be so vigilante."

Explain why.

[talmand]

Because vigilante justice is usually defined as people taking legal authority for themselves because they feel the government's authority or response is lacking. If there is no government to define this by, then it is not vigilante justice and starts to delve more into natural rights. Think of a remote village with no semblance of what we would describe as a modern government, they still deal with problems in their own way. You wouldn't call them vigilantes.

[ZenoArrow]

I'm not asking for the dictionary definition, I'm asking about why vigilante justice (whether you want to call the participants vigilantes or not) would be less troublesome.

For example, imagine I've discovered Starbucks is doing terrible things, and to express my disgust I go around throwing bricks in the windows of the Starbucks in my area. What prevents/discourages this sort of vigilante behaviour?

[stavrianos]

In a hypothetical where the government doesn't exist to provide justice, "vigilante justice" would be the only justice. Whether vigilante justice is preferable to a total absence of justice is the question.

More generally, the whole point of vigilantism is going outside the established judicial framework. If there is no such framework, the concept of vigilantism is meaningless.

As to what prevents/discourages this behaviour, the answer is mostly going to be "the presence of an existing judicial structure, backed by force, which disallows such behaviour".

[ZenoArrow]

If you're getting hung up on the word vigilante (which has been the case for most people who replied to my earlier comment it seems), replace the word 'vigilante' with the word 'street', i.e. street justice. Note my intended meaning hasn't changed, only the way I'm choosing to express it.

Now what prevents street justice in a society without government intervention? The (simplified) answer is self-organised defence organisations. Is a mob/gang boss a preferable means of protection in a community, compared to those means that can be put in place by an elected government?

[JoeAltmaier]

Can't we define 'vigilante' to be a response that's not commensurate with the crime? A lack of justice, if you will. In that view, its quite debatable if no justice would not be better.

[talmand]

I would imagine that, without a structured government to prevent your destructive behavior and the inevitable response, the owner of the Starbucks in question would shoot you for damaging their property. Neither your actions nor the response of the owner would be considered vigilante justice.

[ZenoArrow]

> "I would imagine that, without a structured government to prevent your destructive behavior and the inevitable response, the owner of the Starbucks in question would shoot you for damaging their property. Neither your actions nor the response of the owner would be considered vigilante justice."

I don't care how you define it, what I'm asking is, is that better? Is that the society we want?

[scroy]

The only thing to discourage it would be the better sense of the people in the community. Presumably there are better ways to stop Starbucks than throwing bricks. You have to convince enough people that the place needs to be shut down, then go in and confiscate the coffee beans.

[ZenoArrow]

What would stop organised crime taking advantage of this? The local mafia (or equivalent) providing protection for a fee, etc...

[toomuchtodo]

If there is no government stepping in to prevent Starbucks from doing terrible things, it's no longer vigilante justice.

[ZenoArrow]

You're missing the point. My definition of terrible things may be different from your definition of terrible things. Without a legal framework in place, everyone will choose to act based on their own personal views.

Let's go back to the Starbucks example. The reason I used Starbucks is because they're very likely to be one of the companies that's indirectly supporting the deforestation happening in Indonesia as a result of demand in palm oil.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/25/...

Now how responsible do you make them? One person may argue it's not Starbucks' fault, it's up to the suppliers to act responsibly. Another person would say that companies like Starbucks should be made responsible, as they're one of the companies driving demand for cheap palm oil without the environmental cost factored in.

The reason we have laws in place is to act as a way to set out acceptable behaviour, informed by consensus rather than the whim of an individual. If we abandon law we abandon the framework by which the actions of individuals can be fairly judged. If we leave it up to individuals then you're much more likely to have chaos, more exciting perhaps but more frustrating if you want to have any lasting stability.

[mikeash]

In a place where there is no government, I don't see what would be wrong with vigilante justice. If there are no authorities and no help then you have little choice but to take matters into your own hands.

[ZenoArrow]

> "In a place where there is no government, I don't see what would be wrong with vigilante justice. If there are no authorities and no help then you have little choice but to take matters into your own hands."

The problems with vigilante justice are universal, it doesn't matter if you have little choice or not. Generally speaking the problem is that vigilante justice is much more open to the whim of individual desires and views.

Why is that bad? Let's use the 'brick through the window of Starbucks' example I've used before. If you agree that Starbucks are bad, then the brick through the window may look justified, but if you do not believe Starbucks are bad then the action may appear unjustified.

Consider that the problem some people have with government is that decisions are made on your behalf and you feel powerless to change this. However, if you consider what you have without government, you still have people making decisions on your behalf, except you now have millions more of them, and there's less chance to influence what happens as a result of their actions if you disagree with what they've done. Is that better?

[mikeash]

What you outline is basically why I think it's a bad idea to live in a place with no government. There's a huge potential for problems and often there are no good choices.

The moment you say "Imagine the Indonesian government didn't exist," well, it's going to be a complete shithole. At best you'll be at the mercy of the local warlord or gang leader. Quibbling over exactly how you live your life in this lawless shithole doesn't seem very relevant to the actual situation.

[ZenoArrow]

Yes, I agree, but the argument that I responded to considered there was a distinction between capitalism and exploitation. My point is that exploitation is not the sole domain of government, if you had a capitalist society without government intervention then exploitation would still exist, but you'd have to rely on different methods in order to resist this exploitation, and those methods would not necessarily be an improvement over what we have now.

[mikeash]

Gotcha, I must have missed the context and taken your comment too literally.