Tbh I don ' t blame woody . He was getting called Autistic in what seemed like the entire sub for a long time , and he decided to stop coming here . I don ' t blame him , he is a 43 ? year old millionaire , why should he have to go visit some website where hundreds of people are suddenly experts in autism and can give you a list of 50 symptoms he has . I see what you are saying , but I also see why Woody in particular stopped visiting as much . <| sep |> La ToupieS ' t ' un secret , sti ! <| sep |> So if someone is killing capitalists , there wouldn ' t be any legal repercussions ? Any responses would be ad hoc ? And that ' s true for all crimes ? Not exactly . My point is that these sorts of structures that you ' re describing would not form in the first place , so killing would be unnecessary . That being said , I would imagine most anarchists have ways of dealing with violent behavior in their society . I ' m not an anarchist so I do not know how they ' d deal with killing for example , but I ' d imagine they ' d put a lot of emphasis on prevention beforhand . How they ' d punish such behaviors after the fact would probably depend on which tendency you ' re talking about . EDIT Here ' s a good Bob Black piece on how some anarchists would deal with violence . b l a c k a n a n a r c h i s t r e s p o n s e t o a n a narchistresponsetocrimeSo if someone breaks the lock off of my well and takes all of my water , there are no legal repercussions ? Well , in a sense , yes , but it would be more accurate to say that the community would take it back as it would not just be an instance of another person hoarding the water it as you had , but rather everyone would be able to freely access this water . This stance is a vitally important part of the anarchist position and perhaps even the broader leftist position , I would say . I think there is often a mischaracterization of leftanarchists that they have a very narrow definition of violence and only care about violence in the context of hierarchy compared to say ancaps . I am not an anarchist , but from my experience , that is not the case . Rather , they have a broader definition of violence . They would take issue with one person hoarding all the water in order to make inhabitants of the community do as this person pleases . So yes , if you claim all the water in an area as a means of gaining some sort of social leverage over the community , rather than for personal consumption , most anarchists would consider that an act of violence and would view seizing your property as an act of selfdefense . This is sounding a lot more like the lay person ' s understanding of anarchy , where there are no rules at all and people can do whatever they like . Well , in the case of private property I ' d say that ' s actually a decent way of thinking about it .