Memes

I have a feeling youre going to take this as disingenuous because it challenges your notions and people typically get defensive when pushed on something that does not have the most solid of foundations, which it seems to me to be whats going on with you, but these questions are genuine.

I take it comments as disingenuous when I sense the commenter wants to argue in bad faith. You're clearly trying to argue in good faith, so I don't understand the assumption. I enjoy getting pushed on my political beliefs because if challenges me to think about them more deeply.

An organization of armed vigilantes fighting against whomever they decide is a "bad actor" wanting to "coup" "their" community? Sounds authoritarian.

Please explain. To me, that sounds more authoritative rather than authoritarian. While they might sound like near synonyms, I am considering colloquial usage of the words when I use them, especially in the way that western propaganda outlets have defined the word "authoritarian."

Also, try to be less vague.
Who decides what a "bad actor" is?

I am being vague on purpose because there is no single example of a bad actor who would seek control. A bad actor could be someone or a group of people who have power-seeking behavior who specifically seek to control a populace. A bad actor could also be a foreign state attempting to seize land to make it a part of their empire and/or to use the populace for slave labor.

What makes it a "coup" compared to just a change in leadership?

A coup is involuntary. A change in leadership in an anarchist society (assuming a leadership position or positions are absolutely necessary and there could be no reasonable substitute) would be purely democratic in nature, and more importantly be kept on very small scales.

A quick aside, I'm in favor of a form of governance where there is a larger federation of small communities who all have independence, but all work together towards common goals, and I am keeping that vague on purpose since I am not the decider of what those common goals are. I guess vague terms like "peace" and "prosperity" would come to mind. The small communities would be where the actual people live, and would be where they have direct control over how their lives are run via direct democratic rule. The larger federation would be involved with guaranteeing that necessities are able to be provided based on a taxation system. One of these necessities would include arms. Now since this federation would have a lot of power, avoiding corruption would be difficult, espcially since people have to be involved. In terms of rulemaking, direct democracy would be what I am in favor of. In terms of leadership positions, maybe something like a sortition system could be implemented, but I could be swayed if there are better systems.

What makes it "their" community and how are the "bad actors" separate from said community?

The bad actors do not necessarily have to come from outside the community. I do not believe I fully understand the first part of the question, though, but if I were to guess, you are asking what defines a community. If that is the case, the community would decide that on their own terms democratically.

What if you don't have any volunteers?

Then, quite frankly, that specific community is almost certainly doomed to failure unless another nearby community chooses to defend them.

Where do you get the weapons from?

Weapons manufacturers. I'm personally in favor of the organizational structure of worker cooperatives as that is the closest implementatiom of democracy I've seen in the context of a business structure, but that is by no means the only valid form of organization of a business. There would also be trade amongst communities and other countries. Also see the above point about the larger federation.

Who organises the training and how?

Volunteers who are already trained (while the Bootstrap Paradox would normally apply, there are already plenty of people across the world who are more than qualified and willing to train a volunteer militia). And in terms of how? It could be as simple as posting a sign-up sheet on a public bulletin board with a meeting place and time.

What happens if a volunteer won't participate in the training?

They are free to leave. If the organizers see them as an active hinderance, the organizers would be free to kick them out.

What if I disagree with your volunteers?

Then speak out. Maybe you have a good idea that could be implemented. If the organizers disagree but the vast majority of volunteers think it could be a good idea to implement, maybe if could be put to a vote. I'd like an example, though.

What if I, as a volunteer, disagree on the course of action?

I'm failing to distinguish this question from the last one.

You seem to be imagining some sort of situation where you have a society that's organised well enough to be able to supply itself with arms and all other logistical needs for a prolonged conflict. Such a society is one with a remarkable industrial base, meaning it is quite large. How did that come to be at that point?

Time, effort, resources, trade, and hard work. There's no secret magic.

How are the materials passed around, who decides what goes where and why does everyone go along with it?

Trade would still exist amongst and within communities, and even amongst countries. We currently live in a global society, and I don't see that changing. As for why people would go along with it, because it benefits everyone involved (same reason people trade today). It's not like society would be starting from scratch.

What happens when needs change or there is not sufficient material?

It depends on what those specific needs are or what those specific materials are and who has the availability of those materials. Different situations call for different solutions.

You also seem to imagine everyone just agreeing on a course of action. How is said course organised?

When did I say everyone would unanimously agree on anything? I am in favor of direct democracy on small scales wherever possible, and on larger scales when needed. Humans rarely unanimously agree on anything.

You seem to imagine that this volunteer corps springs into action with unilateral support against some vague "bad actor". How does this "bad actor" manage to come to a position where they can "coup" (and what is it they are "couping"?) yet also one where everyone agrees that this bad actor is an outsider that must be fought and not just a political reformer?

I've already answered some of these questions, so I will just touch on the points that I haven't answered yet. Unilateral support for basically anything is damn near impossible, and political reformers are welcome, even if they are outsiders. The key is democratic consent amongst the community.

Now, there is a more difficult question that, while you didn't directly ask, I feel was implied, and that is how does a community determine who wishes to cause harm on a mass scale enough to coup the community before it happens? I can't say I have the perfect answer to that, as there is no one specific type of person or group who can be identified, and many times, they blend in very well.
Hell, sometimes, they could even gain actual support and cause real harm completely democratically using good ol' tried-and-true divide and conquer strategies. My hope to avoid that specific scenario is that if people are living good, comfortable lives that they feel they have a direct say in that divide and conquer (whether that be the introduction of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia or whatever other "ism" or "phobia" you want to throw in there) would be much less likely to work.

Not to mention the very vague definitions going on.
Who decides what a "bad actor" is?
What makes it a "coup" compared to just a change in leadership?
What makes it "their" community where it is also not the "bad actors" community?
What if you don't have any volunteers?
Where do you get the weapons from?
Who organises the training and how?
What happens if a volunteer won't participate in the training?