Well, this question clearly has gotten beyond me, but I may as well clarify my own position:
I am not an anarchist in the sense of someone advocating any prolonged state of violent lawlessness. Clearly we all need laws and social order in order to be secure in our happy living. But (big but) I do believe that radical socio-political revolution is the only path to significant political change. E.g., our two parties are two sides of the same coin, and only by revolutionary practice can real change come about. The whole idea being to destabilize the socio-political order enough that we expand the coordinates of the politically possible, so that we move into a political terrain that literally was unthinkable before the revolutionary moment. Destabilization, often violent, is in my view the only path to a revolutionary moment (which, again, is itself the only path to significant political change). So sorry: no pain, no gain. Yes, people get hurt and lose property and die during revolutions, but that's just how it goes.
That does NOT mean that I am under any obligation to WANT to make such sacrifices personally. I can, without contradicting myself, desire a radical socio-political destabilization that nonetheless does not deprive me personally of life or even property. So to answer everybody claiming that a "real" anarchist would simply not show up for jury duty: nope. I don't want to get fined or arrested--even though I'm an anarchist--so I will show up to do my duty. But my duty is to provide a good-faith view of what I as a peer of the accused feel is right, based upon my interpretation of the law. It just so happens that my good-faith interpretation of the law is radically contrary, hence the quandary. I hope that clarifies: an anarchist can still be selfish, and that's why I show up.
Hawaiiguy: your meth question doesn't seem tough at all. Give the guy a medal for shooting a cop if you want. Or don't. Take his kids away if you want. Or don't. But to be more clear about it: your feeling of self-contradiction is perfectly warranted. It's taken me a long time to work through this, but my current feeling is that, well, we are all self-contradictory, so why worry about it. For example, even to regard oneself as an individual person on a day-to-day basis, we have to step back, as if in a mirror, and think of ourselves in the third person, as objects in the world. But at the same time, to act and live is to experience life in the first person, without even the mediation of an "I." Hence, there's not an "I feel tired" in my soul. I simply and immediately feel tired. But the moment I think of such tiredness I split myself by creating a self-objective "I" that is tired. So that's a fundamental form of self-contradiction that every single person enacts every day. Political thought should be no different in my view. If I'm hypocritical, paradoxical, contradictory even in my most basic forms of day-to-day thought, then I refuse this demand to be coherent and consistent in my political thought. That's why I'm allowed to be an anarchist but also to desire protection from thieves, or to be a communist but to also want to keep all my stuff. It's not that these aren't contradictions: it's that the basic human state is contradictory in many, many ways, so what's the problem? So indulge yourself a little: buy from the corporate man, but ALSO be anti-corporate. In any case it beats a life of guilt in which you can't have your cake OR eat it.
And again, these practical quesitons (the meth situation, etc.) are non-questions in relation to my particular beliefs because I support not sustained anarchy (which itself seems contradictory), but only a brief moment of total disorder. After that, the social-political world is destabilized enough that genuine revolutionary political change can take place, and then we start building a stable society again...but one conceived upon drastically different coordinates. The purpose of advocating anarchism is simply to provide a durable path to such an ends. The question of how to sustain an anarchic state of affairs is difficult but of zero concern to me.
So, to respond to the very first post: what I "hope for" as an anarchist is not, strictly speaking, sustained anarchy. I mean, even a moment of global disorder will be hell to go through, I'm sure. What I "hope for" is that such destabilization will lead to a drastically new vocabulary for the socially and politically possible...which is something that I think a lot of people would appreciate. It's just that most aren't realistic enough to realize that you've got to break some eggs in the process. (Again, though, hopefully not MY eggs.)
Mzgator, I hope that this answers some of your questions too. Maybe I should have clarified sooner. So, no, I'm not "against everything." I do believe that social order (flawed though it is)--laws, cops, taxes, due process--should exist. I simply am very dissatisified with their current form, and I believe that advocating an anarchic *moment* is a good path towards genuine change. So to answer the question about refusing to convict a corrupt politician, say, instead of refusing to convict a drug dealer: my goal as a juror would simply be to screw up the legal process as much as possible. Probably that would mean voting against the majority of the jury, whatever that majority happened to be. I would basically be completely unconcerned with who the accused is and what he may have done: the point here is to register my non-confidence with the system itself, as it currently stands, and thereby to help facilitate its collapse and subsequent rebuilding.
Hossman: yes, I would willingly curtail someone else's "rights" to satisfy my philosophy. Because I believe that the system of so-called "rights" as it is currently articulated is a bunch of hogwash anyway...just a load of rhetoric meant to make us like it when the government toys with us. And YES, anarchists and most others are "brave when it's in theory" but maybe not so much in practice. THAT is why theory is very, very important. So many people forget this: the strictly theoretical provides us with a space where we can think bravely without risking life and limb. If every thought experiment had to be actualized, we would all be a lot more timid about what we thought. And that timidness would have deprived us of many of the greatest discoveries, etc. in human history.
Hossman, you are right though to point out that the ostensible function of a juror is simply to evaluate burden of proof vis-a-vis the law as it stands. Personal beliefs should not, in theory, come into play in the first place. I would simply have to state in voir dire that I cannot or will not provide such an interpretive service. I wonder if the way in which I made such a statement (e.g., "I cannot be objective because I fundamentally object to the process." VS "I refuse to cooperate.") would impact whether or not the judge chose to hold me in contempt.
OK, that's all I can manage. Hope this clarifies. I'm glad I managed to start a heated debate, if nothing else. Too bad the level heads didn't prevail at first. Thanks to Poser and sfgal for the notes of support.
Composing members:
0
