Free online anarchist library?

[AncapFTW]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this topics, but...

 

I had an idea for a book about possible non-lethal ways to deal with aggressors, including long-term conflicts (an Anarchist's cookbook that wasn't about killing people, but stopping them with non-lethal force).  Then I realized that, while I had some ideas, I didn't know enough about how to fight to know how well my ideas would work.  That's when I got the idea for an "open-source" (not sure the term for literature) book where anyone could contribute and their contributions would be marked.  They could be rated based on reliability as there ideas were tested, and the most trusted of them could look at it to fix mistakes.

 

Then I realized that this idea could work in other areas as well.  We could even make textbooks, books on foreign languages, even how-to books.  We could create an entire library.

 

Has anyone heard of someone already doing any of this?  Yes, I know there's Wikipedia, but it's more of a topic-by-topic site, not a place to find e-books.  If there is someone doing it I'd like to look at them before trying to do it on my own.

[Will Torbald]

That sounds a lot like wikipedia, but it also sounds like a forum (perhaps even this one), or reddit. I would argue, however, that any form of non lethal force has been well considered before. From Aikido to Judo there's plenty of martil arts that promote the least amount of harm while protecting people.

[AncapFTW]

That sounds a lot like wikipedia, but it also sounds like a forum (perhaps even this one), or reddit. I would argue, however, that any form of non lethal force has been well considered before. From Aikido to Judo there's plenty of martil arts that promote the least amount of harm while protecting people.

And how much training is required to learn to do that reliably and quickly?  I was thinking of something anyone can do, or lean to do quickly, like use a taser or fill a balloon with pureed habanero peppers and throw it at them.  The second one requires prep time, but should slow them down long enough to use slower, less lethal methods.

[dsayers]

If you don't mind me saying so, I see two problems with the phrase "non-lethal." First of all, you can kill somebody with a teaspoon of water. Secondly, if somebody is using lethal force against you, reaching for a "non-lethal" answer might not be good enough. In a recent video about the migrant crisis, Stef went on a pretty good rant about how you can't be polite with rude people for example. You can't be tolerant of intolerant people. You can't be gentle with somebody who is aggressive.

 

Obviously reaching for a 44 Magnum in response to a child nicking a bag of M&M's isn't a reasonable response. But if some guy hopped up on PCP thinks you cut him off in traffic and is determined to teach you a lesson, spraying salad dressing in his face isn't going to stop him. It reminds me of Larken Rose's video "When Should You Shoot A Cop?" He's not advocating it obviously. But it does point out that if you've never asked the question, if the inclusion of the word cop makes the question uncomfortable, then you're essentially letting other people paralyze you for the purpose of preying upon you. Sort of like relying ONLY on "non-lethal" options when a lethal one might be NECESSARY.

 

I don't know where you're going with this, so I apologize if this is out of left field relative to what you had in mind. Just wanted to point out that you can be polite all you want, but if somebody is being rude for example, you being polite benefits them. Evil-doers rely on this self-paralysis to make what they do less risky.

[Wuzzums]

I might be wrong but it did you put forth the proposition that anarchist force is not lethal force? Again, might be way off topic here, but I want to point out that anarchist force is self defense and self defense includes lethal force.

 

Nevertheless, the state has poured millions maybe billions (citation needed) in researching non-lethal force: http://neweartharmy.com/Welcome.html

Some seem feasible like the glue cannon and the... uhm... "sparkly eyes technique".

[AncapFTW]

If you don't mind me saying so, I see two problems with the phrase "non-lethal." First of all, you can kill somebody with a teaspoon of water. Secondly, if somebody is using lethal force against you, reaching for a "non-lethal" answer might not be good enough. In a recent video about the migrant crisis, Stef went on a pretty good rant about how you can't be polite with rude people for example. You can't be tolerant of intolerant people. You can't be gentle with somebody who is aggressive.

 

Obviously reaching for a 44 Magnum in response to a child nicking a bag of M&M's isn't a reasonable response. But if some guy hopped up on PCP thinks you cut him off in traffic and is determined to teach you a lesson, spraying salad dressing in his face isn't going to stop him. It reminds me of Larken Rose's video "When Should You Shoot A Cop?" He's not advocating it obviously. But it does point out that if you've never asked the question, if the inclusion of the word cop makes the question uncomfortable, then you're essentially letting other people paralyze you for the purpose of preying upon you. Sort of like relying ONLY on "non-lethal" options when a lethal one might be NECESSARY.

 

I don't know where you're going with this, so I apologize if this is out of left field relative to what you had in mind. Just wanted to point out that you can be polite all you want, but if somebody is being rude for example, you being polite benefits them. Evil-doers rely on this self-paralysis to make what they do less risky.

I realize that sometimes non-lethal (by which I mean things that aren't' very likely to be lethal, as you can't ever know for certain) force may not be appropriate, but the current method of "everyone in this area is my enemy and will get shot" doesn't work either, for police or military.  There should be a non-lethal way to deal with threats, either because you aren't sure if they warrant death for their crimes or because there are people who don't deserve death mixed with those that do.  Also, I'm not sure I would be willing to take a life, even in self defense.

 

Besides, even in a war setting, it wouldn't be about "being nice" to people that want to hurt you.  Any war against a superior force is primarily a psychological war.

 

For the purposes of the argument, let's say that there are a few thousand anarchists (us) living on an island and, after they succeed (or try to) the US military attacks them.  Five thousand ordinary people verses one thousand troops with air support, tanks, and a blockade around the island is much too large of a force to deal with.  If, on the other hand, we were able to make the troops question what they were doing we might convince them to pull out.  Failing that, if the people of the US saw us getting slaughtered by the military for no better reason than "they tried to leave", we would become martyrs.  Perhaps that would lead to even more people succeeding, or at least weaken the government's hold on its people.  If we kill large numbers of them, though, the they become the martyrs and we become the terrorists or, at the least, the enemy who's killing their brave troops.

 

In a police situation, the same thing would happen.  If cops die when they attack you, everyone assumes that they were correct to attack you and that you are evil.  If, on the other hand, the cops get hit with pepper spray and tazed before you escape, people think the cops were inept and were attacking people who didn't warrant the use of lethal force.

 

 

I might be wrong but it did you put forth the proposition that anarchist force is not lethal force? Again, might be way off topic here, but I want to point out that anarchist force is self defense and self defense includes lethal force.

 

Nevertheless, the state has poured millions maybe billions (citation needed) in researching non-lethal force: http://neweartharmy.com/Welcome.html

Some seem feasible like the glue cannon and the... uhm... "sparkly eyes technique".

 

Thanks.  I'll look into that.  I've got ideas for non-lethal weapons (nullweps?), but I need to build them to see how well they work.  I'm considering dialing down the power and shooting chickens to test them if I do make them.

[dsayers]

"everyone in this area is my enemy and will get shot" doesn't work either, for police or military.  There should be a non-lethal way to deal with threats

This was the first qualification I brought to the topic. Police have used tazers for example an inordinate amount of times and in scenarios where that level of force was not required simply because it was categorized as non-lethal.

 

I'm not sure I would be willing to take a life, even in self defense.

Well I have good news for you then. If you're in a situation where your life depends on it, you will find it wasn't a choice at all. As in it will literally be over by time you are conscious of it. Do not underestimate your autonomic system mixed with an adrenaline dump. And this is why I make an effort to debunk "non-lethal." While not easy, it is possible to override this self-preservation with enough programming ahead of time. Sympathy for your attacker's being alive status in the moment helps nobody.

 

As for your anarchists vs army scenario, this would be a symptom and not something that can be solved in the moment (beyond simply surviving it). The aggressors here reject property rights in their mind even though their very behavior accepts property rights. The solution here would be making the case for property rights to those already traumatized and to not traumatize those not yet traumatized. Then there simply wouldn't be any scenario of this grand aggression.

 

In a police situation, the same thing would happen.  If cops die when they attack you, everyone assumes that they were correct to attack you and that you are evil.  If, on the other hand, the cops get hit with pepper spray and tazed before you escape, people think the cops were inept and were attacking people who didn't warrant the use of lethal force.

I disagree. Anybody who accepts that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories assume the police are automatically in the right. I've been held at full-auto rifle point by police twice, once when there wasn't even an accusation of wrong-doing. I couldn't tell you how many people drove by as if there weren't humans threatening humans with lethal force right in front of them. If a cop accuses somebody of resisting or attacking, that's the narrative. "I didn't kill him" isn't going to save you.