Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
In an anarchistic society, my understanding is that individuals are primarily responsible for their own safety and sustenance. But what about individuals who are naturally weaker in both physical strength and sometimes also stamina which includes people of both genders and especially the elderly.

These people cannot possibly be expected to defend themselves from personal attack so in what ways would an anarchistic society reconcile this issue, if at all?
every individual, at various points in their life, have disproportionately weaker  bodies (or less stamina) than "other" people. so "these people" really means all people. i can't make a clear and tidy distinction between "the strong" and "the weak".

and as things stand today, i don't see or feel the state "taking responsibility" for my safety or sustenance anyway. my safety still comes down to my own abilities and (as lawrence points out) those who care about me.

2 Answers

+3 votes
It's called friends. Also, why do you assume that attacks would be acceptable in an anarchistic society?
by (570 points)
+1 vote

safety is another one of those words. lots of baggage, not necessarily a lot of clarity.

ultimately, we are all responsible for our own safety all the time. that can mean things like eating good food, having strong social ties, having a place to sleep, fighting against things that hurt us, understanding what we want from relationships and learning how to get it, etc.

but since you seem to be positing an anarchist scenario as a war of all against all, i'd (again) point you to some of the previous questions about anarchist situations qua disagreements/punishment, etc.

by (53.1k points)
strongly agree with particularly the second paragraph.

i also think the first sentence of lawrence's answer is spot on.

i get a kick out of the term "safe space". as if such a thing is possible. but it is the criteria folks use that i find so amusing. i have been around many women who claim that a safe space is one where there are no men. i doubt they've ever been to a women's prison. or for that matter to the douglass projects where i grew up.