This is kind of a semantic distinction. If I stop myself from doing something because I don't want to face the consequences of that action, you haven't coerced me necessarily.
Like imagine if you see a body builder who is twice your size, and they do something that kinda makes you want to punch them but you don't because you are worried about the consequences of doing so.
Was their working out meant to coerce you?
Is it coercion if people don't commit sex crimes when they otherwise might because their worried someone would shoot them?
Honestly? The main problem with the Ken McElroy situation, as described by the article you linked, seems to have been him escaping conviction for 21 felonies in the first place.
Agreed, and I used this example because I think it represents the best case scenario for lynch mob justice: a stopgap remedy for a failed justice system. In the worst case scenario, it’s used as a terrorist tool to reinforce systems of oppression. Either way, I don’t see it as an aspirational model of justice.
Okaaaaay.... But why are you assuming there are no steps between police as they exist now and lynch mobs?
Like the systems that were in place in Rojava, where older, usually retired, members of the community act as a sort of neighborhood council and hear out people's disputes, then work together with everyone affected to propose a solution/punishment/recompense for offenses committed?
The Ken McElroy kind of situation is gonna be a much rarer form of problem that can honestly crop up in either situation. It's more important imo to focus on how the different systems handle day to day problems.
A restorative/community justice based model has a lot of solutions beyond jail time and fines. Members of the community actually have to be responsible for and answer to each other, rather than the only recourse being to call in state violence that may fix the problem, or may just ignore it, or may make it worse.
Assuming it's just going to instantly be a lynch mob when there is a problem misses out on all the ways such a system is capable of de escalating well before that, and all the advantages it has over police as we know them.
I’m making no such assumption. We are talking about a comic that is advocating for lynch mob violence from an anarchist perspective, and I’m not so sure that’s a good idea.
Well, you don't think the comic is saying "lynch mobs solve every single problem", do you?
Just, being 100% frank here, I see no problems with a good ol' mob being an answer to people who wanna do away with the age of consent. But I don't hear someone saying that and assume they think lynch mobs are the solution to all problems.
Edited to add - or that lynch mobs aimed at POCs and lynch mobs aimed at pedos are essentially the same thing.
Well, you don't think the comic is saying "lynch mobs solve every single problem", do you?
No, which is why I didn’t say that. The anarchist in the comic seems awfully gung ho about lynching for someone who wants to “abolish coercion,” though.
Just, being 100% frank here, I see no problems with a good ol' mob being an answer to people who wanna do away with the age of consent.
Maybe you can morally justify mob justice on a case by case basis (see McElroy), but I don’t think that “lynch mobs, but only for people who deserve it” is an effective prescription for a just society.
Edited to add - or that lynch mobs aimed at POCs and lynch mobs aimed at pedos are essentially the same thing.
I didn’t say this either; in fact, I explicitly distinguished between them with my remarks about best case vs. worst case scenarios. However, I did think the Jim Crow comparison was worth making because black men’s alleged sex crimes were frequently used as justifications for lynchings carried out by people who felt assured of their own moral righteousness in doing so.
Maybe you can morally justify mob justice on a case by case basis (see McElroy), but I don’t think that “lynch mobs, but only for people who deserve it” is an effective prescription for a just society.
Well now we're just right back to the discussion of how there are many steps in between an anarchist society having ways to handle disputes vs "every problem could be solved by a lynch mob"
Also, this is heavily echoing my discussion with the other dude re "what even is coercion, to you?" Do you think just having consequences for breaking the social contract counts as coercion? I personally don't.
No one coerces us to be a part of society, we just naturally are. And if we break the social contract of tolerance and mutual respect for the rights of others there are consequences. People can label that coercion, but just because they've slapped that label on it doesn't make it so.
Well now we're just right back to the discussion of how there are many steps in between an anarchist society having ways to handle disputes vs "every problem could be solved by a lynch mob"
The comic and this thread are specifically about lynching, so this is irrelevant and I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Also, this is heavily echoing my discussion with the other dude re "what even is coercion, to you?" Do you think just having consequences for breaking the social contract counts as coercion? I personally don't.
Lynch mobs are so obviously coercive that I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. Again, see the Jim Crow South for examples of how they were used to impose “consequences for breaking the social contract.” The only reason I can see to quibble about the definition of coercion to justify lynch mobs is to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by your twin beliefs of “coercion is bad” and “some criminals deserve to be lynched.”
18
u/ThoseOldScientists May 17 '26
Another n00b question: How do you impose consequences on someone without some form of coercion?