Why am I no longer an anarchist

[teo123]

What do you think, is Vukovar Massacre being an inside job (not "make it happen on purpose", but "let it happen on purpose") an implausible conspiracy theory? It doesn't seem to me that it is. The biggest conspiracy ever discovered is the Operation Snow White, and it involved around 5'000 people. The Croatian government letting Vukovar Massacre happen on purpose would, I think, require an order of magnitude fewer people than that, if not two orders of magnitude fewer people. Do you disagree? You might argue that people in Operation Snow White were brainwashed (Scientology) and that that is what made such a massive conspiracy possible, but I'd argue the high-ranking members of the Croatian government at the time were also brainwashed. They were brainwashed by nationalism.
I think that the idea that the Croatian government is responsible for the Varivode Massacre is slightly more problematic, considering it's a "make it happen on purpose", rather than a "let it happen on purpose" conspiracy theory. "Make it happen on purpuse" conspiracy theories are a-priori less plausible than "let it happen on purpose" conspiracy theories, don't you agree? Still, if the Supreme Court of Croatia ruled that it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that it is true, then I guess we have to accept that as at least being plausible.

[teo123]

In any case, I think that Vukovar Massacre would not have happened if more civilians were armed. The hospital in Vukovar was a soft target. Similarly, I think at least some people in Varivode Massacre would be saved if only they had guns in their homes.

[teo123]

I have asked a Quora question about whether people think Vukovar Massacre could have been prevented by people being armed, and I received this answer:

It is possible that the Vukovar massacre could have been prevented if the civilians in Vukovar had been armed. However, it is also possible that this would have only led to more violence. There is no easy answer to this question, and it is one that is still debated by historians and political scientists today.

Well, that's true. However, you can also say that for the military, just like you can say that for armed civilians. "How do you know what would have happened had the Tuđman administration been willing to send the weapons to the Croatian military in Vukovar? Maybe Vukovar Massacre would have still happened, but there would just be even more dead people.".

[teo123]

I've asked a question about Vukovar Massacre on Politics StackExchange, to see what people there think about it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you believe prisons are real now

Yes, I think that they exist but that they shouldn't exist. Just like the police and other policies most people agree on.

There are couple good prisons in Europe, one of the Scandinavian countries I believe, that actually focus on rehabilitation.

There's an argument to be made that with modern technology most people should be under electronic monitoring to prevent recidivism and focus on restitution instead of being uselessly incarcerated, that anybody who needs mental health care should be committed for help, and that anybody who can not be rehabilitated or is too dangerous should simply be Euthanized.

You can make a very strong argument that prisons simply should not exist at all today.

It seems like those beliefs stemmed in part from your faith in anarchism (or fed into it?).

Well, yes, I used to think the true anarchist position is to deny massacres, because, if massacres happen even when there is a government, what would then happen if there was no government? Total nonsense, of course. Most of the massacres happen because of governments, rather than in spite of governments.

Sure, but you need to understand the scope of government and what a government can mean. Without "the state" you still have governing systems in families and unofficial local governments that make up a collective of families and their common interests. Unfortunately, history has shown that these can be even worse than modern governments in terms of mob justice and the lack of prerogative to protect minority interests. The majority preys on the minority because they can. There ends up being more violence and oppression, it's just more spread out over time and space where large governments concentrate violence in more visible ways -- like massacres-- either by committing them or by creating externally supported wealth or power bubbles that can be fragile and pop easily when they don't have strong internal and local support. Sometimes both at the same time.

In the case of Vukovar, is it something along the lines of a minority that was disliked locally by a majority but that was protected by a state government? That'd be a sort of popping bubble situation.
Them being armed might have stopped it by creating internal support structures that could dissuade attack. Large national governments are often very bad at quickly responding to mobs and rogue militias when they target minorities. Arguably, sometimes that foot dragging is intentional inaction or delay.
Similar events have occurred in the U.S.A. in Tulsa. Search Black Wall Street massacre.

An unsanctioned massacre can also probably only happen with organization on the sub-state level, with complicity across large swaths of the informal governing structure of those committing the crime. So it's still some kind of government doing the massacre... the thing is that there's no such thing as a situation that lacks those governing structures.

It's a bad idea to arm civilians generally. It would be interesting policy-wise to permit it in cases of demonstrable risk to a minority from violent persecution. If ONLY black business owners in Tulsa were allowed to have firearms and all of the racist rednecks didn't, things might have turned out differently, but giving everybody guns as a matter of policy doesn't do the minority at risk of massacre many favors. What helps is if nobody has guns, and massacres have to be carried out with clubs and knives -- it's a much slower burn, and it's something people can more easily escape from. Headline grabbing knife attacks are minuscule incidents compared to mass shootings.

[teo123]

In the case of Vukovar, is it something along the lines of a minority that was disliked locally by a majority but that was protected by a state government?

I don't know if the Croatians were even a minority at Vukovar at the time. If they were, they were only a slight minority (like 40% Croatians and 60% Serbians).
The story of Vukovar Massacre makes so little sense. But you know as they say, reality is stranger than fiction because fiction at least has to make sense to the author.

What helps is if nobody has guns

You need to realize that other people having guns is not the only reason we need guns. Many defensive gun uses are against unarmed criminals. Unarmed criminals choosing soft targets such as elderly peoples' homes. Such as in this case. Even if we could somehow magically make all guns disappear, that doesn't necessarily mean violence would decline. It might even increase. Not to mention some defensive gun uses are against animals, who are obviously not carrying a gun. What would have happened if Jimmy Carter didn't have a gun when the rabbit attacked him?
And I don't know where the Željko Ražnatović'es illegal army that committed Vukovar Massacre got their guns from, but I am quite certain Croatian gun control couldn't have stopped it. I am quite certain most of the people in that illegal army got their guns from somewhere in Serbia.

massacres have to be carried out with clubs and knives

The problem with knife fights is that, in a knife fight, generally both the winners and the losers die. In a knife fight, the loser dies on the street while the winner dies in the hospital.

[teo123]

By the way, @brimstoneSalad, what do you think about the idea that violence declined in the US over the last century primarily because there are way more guns now, so violent criminals are deterred by victims potentially having guns? It seems to me that it could be true. The UK has way fewer guns now than it used to have a century ago, and the violence in the UK has (if statistics are to be trusted) increased over the last 100 years.
Though, that doesn't explain why the violence has been decreasing over time long before firearms were invented or why violence has been declining in Australia, when Australia has fewer guns than a century ago.

[teo123]

I've just uploaded the video about why I am no longer an anarchist: https://youtu.be/BvokFAbWC1c?si=wQqU0daUF-L_DWEq

[brimstoneSalad]

You need to realize that other people having guns is not the only reason we need guns. Many defensive gun uses are against unarmed criminals. Unarmed criminals choosing soft targets such as elderly peoples' homes.

In these cases the best thing to do is to let them take the money, then go after them with police to find them later.
These are considered cowardly and despicable crimes, so it's not that hard to find out who did it; some of these people's own mothers would turn them in.

Even if we could somehow magically make all guns disappear, that doesn't necessarily mean violence would decline.

It IS less violent, though. Don't confuse crime generally with violent crime. Of particular concern is lethal violent crime.

I am quite certain most of the people in that illegal army got their guns from somewhere in Serbia.

Controlling borders and the black market is a complex issue.
Like how US gun manufacturers flood Mexico with illegal military grade weapons it supplies to cartels.

Frankly it's Mexico that should want to build the wall since their border towns suffer much more than the US.

The problem with knife fights is that, in a knife fight, generally both the winners and the losers die. In a knife fight, the loser dies on the street while the winner dies in the hospital.

In game theory, that would create a greater incentive to avoid conflict. Much more so than your increasing guns violence decline theory.
With guns, it's the person who shoots first who lives and the more conflict averse who dies -- it creates the opposite incentive.

[teo123]

In game theory, that would create a greater incentive to avoid conflict. Much more so than your increasing guns violence decline theory.
With guns, it's the person who shoots first who lives and the more conflict averse who dies -- it creates the opposite incentive.

You can apply game theory to economics because people tend to be relatively rational when doing economic transactions, but you cannot apply game theory to violent crime. If violent criminals were rational, they wouldn't be violent criminals. Guns definitely act much more as a psychological deterrent than knives do, even though your victim being armed with a knife is about as dangerous as your victim being armed with a gun.