Fantasy Justice: Incarceration
Chapter 29

Monday, April 12th, 2060

Felorius, Unholy Alliance Territory

Sara walked cheerfully among the bookshelves, until she found Clare standing not far from where she had left her. The tank was reading a book titled A History of the Second Inmate War: Minor Contests. She had a dour expression—more so than usual.

It was late in the evening. And though there were still plenty of other inmates in the Great Library, none were nearby. “There you are,” the healer said. Clare disappeared the book into her inventory. “I found something on the top floor I want to show you.”

“I thought the uppermost floors didn’t have any content yet?”

“They don’t. This is a surprise,” she said mischievously.

“...You’re certain nothing’s wrong?”

Sara laughed. “You’re always worrying lately.”

“How could I not, after that traitor challenged you? ...Speaking of that, I forgot to thank you.”

“Thank me?”

“For not fighting him—I could never forgive myself, if something happened to you because I wasn’t there. I really wish you’d let me escort you to and from work.”

“It really isn’t necessary. Besides, it would cut into what little downtime you have—you need some way to get rid of stress if you’re going to be effective in combat.”

“I suppose.”

“You really should lighten up—I already promised not to fight the traitor by myself. Anyway, follow me.” Sara led her companion toward the nearby elevator.

“I’m sorry if this is rude...but I don’t completely trust you to keep that promise. May was right, that you’re too willing to put yourself in danger for others.”

“Says the woman who’s determined to protect me regardless of any personal cost,” Sara said pointedly.

“That’s different. I have to try to make up for what I’ve done.”

“Even if the reasons are different, we both have cause to fight.” The elevator car was still present from when Sara had arrived on the floor. Soon they were ascending through the building. “But you don’t need to worry. From a tactical perspective, it would be safer to fight the traitor four against two instead of one on one.”

“But we unanimously voted against that yesterday.”

“I didn’t vote that way because I reconsidered Cantor’s challenge. John says the Assassins will be able to handle the situation eventually. I’m still willing to trust him on that.

“...Oh, I’ve been meaning to ask you something. You didn’t vote the same as me out of some sense of obligation, did you?”

“No. I’ll never vote to put you in unnecessary danger regardless of your wishes. Unless you want me to always vote the same as you...?”

“Absolutely not. Whatever you believe you owe me, I’d never want you to lose your agency.”

Clare nodded. The elevator arrived at its destination and Sara led them onward. This floor was similar to one they had left, but the shelves were all empty. And instead of a normal ceiling there was the library’s dome.

In one corner of this floor, hidden between two bookshelves was Sara’s discovery. “Stairs?” Clare asked.

“To the roof! You have to see the view from up there.” At the top of the stairs was a trap door. Sara pushed it open and the women emerged onto the roof. The dome did not cover the entire area—beyond it was some space for walking, and then a railing that went all the way around the building. A short distance past the railing was the edge of the structure and a long drop.

It was a warm, clear night. The sky was decorated by a multitude of stars and the asteroid belt. The city was aglow in lights that revealed its stark beauty. Far in the distance, Castle Malice and its impossibly high central tower were visible. The pair were situated well above the aqueducts, and every building besides the castle. The cathedral could be seen, and the river flowing through the northwest quarter beyond it. There was also the city wall and the mountains even further to the north.

“Isn’t it gorgeous?” Sara asked excitedly.

“It is.”

“Of course, the real reason I brought you up here was to get you alone...so I can turn you into an eternal creature of the night.” Sara opened her mouth, extended her fangs, and made a hissing noise at Clare.

“It’s about time—I could use the extra mana,” Clare deadpanned.

Sara covered her mouth and laughed. She retracted her fangs once more. They looked out in silence for a while. Gradually, Clare’s expression clouded once more. “Are you okay?” the healer asked. “You seem a little down tonight.”

“Sorry, I didn’t mean to trouble you. You must be worried, after what happened the last time I was in a poor mood.”

“I didn’t mean it like that,” Sara said hastily, not wanting her friend to have such a misapprehension. “I trust you implicitly. But if there’s anything you want to talk about, I’m here for you.”

“...I didn’t want to bother you with it, but I guess I already have. Tonight I’ve been searching through the history books for mention of my parents. I suppose I was curious. ...I found my mother’s name among a list of Cassandra’s victims.”

“I’m sorry.”

“It doesn’t really change anything. I lost my parents a long time ago. And I already had ample reason to hate Cassandra for how she treated Pari, as well as the current threat she represents.” Sara nodded to her. “If you don’t mind my asking, how do you feel about her? You haven’t really said anything about it.”

“I’m appalled by her actions of course. And I wish she could be prevented from harming anyone else.”

“That’s it? Don’t you hate her?”

“Hate is a very difficult emotion to resist. But I try to never indulge it or act on it.”

“Why not?”

“Because it can cloud one’s judgment and lead to innocent people being hurt. And, not to get too abstract, but I don’t consider it justified from a philosophical standpoint.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, it’s not as if anyone wakes up one morning and says to themselves, ‘I’m going to start committing atrocities today.’ People are the way they are because of factors like genetics, fetal environment, upbringing, childhood trauma, and early education. None of which they have any control over. Really, the only difference between me and a serial killer is dumb luck. On that basis, I pity rather than hate people who senselessly harm others. Had any of those factors been different, they could have turned out better.”

“Are you saying you don’t believe in free will?”

“It depends on what you mean by the phrase. If ‘free will’ just means having the experience of making meaningful decisions, that much is accurate. But I do think my decisions and my consciousness proceed from the arrangement of matter and energy in my brain. And I don’t believe that my brain is immune to the laws of physics.”

“So everything’s predetermined?”

“No—that word implies something worked out what’s going to happen ahead of time. I suspect that people are far too complicated to ever predict their actions with complete accuracy.

“I don’t think it really matters much either way. My consciousness is either the product of physics or metaphysics—and if I do have a soul, it’s not as if I or anyone else gets to choose what kind of soul they get. Regardless, having my consciousness proceed from something that can’t be understood doesn’t somehow make my thoughts or emotions any more special.”

Clare was some time in answering. “So you really don’t hate Cassandra?”

“You shouldn’t get the wrong idea—maybe I’m guilty of bottling up my negative emotions too much, but I feel anger the same as anyone else. I’m angry over what she did to Pari, and I’m angry that she’s putting me and my friends in danger now. But it was nature, nurture, or some combination of the two that made her a threat to us.

“If she could be rehabilitated so that she wouldn’t harm anyone else, that would be the best outcome. Failing that, I’d prefer to see her restrained from causing more harm as humanely as possible. And if killing her truly was the only way to protect others, and I somehow had that opportunity despite being trapped in this prison...then I guess I’d kill her. Assuming I could work up the nerve.

“People talk about ‘moral responsibility,’ but that concept is irrelevant when it comes to justifying action against malignant elements in a community. I can support harming someone to protect the innocent regardless.”

“Thank you for telling me all this. I’ve been wondering why you forgave me so quickly ever since I attacked you. I understand now.” Sara nodded in reply. “It’s a very different way of looking at the world, compared to what I’m used to... But it’s worth considering. I just don’t know if I can ever learn to control my temper the way you have.”

“I’m surprised you don’t have any objection. You used to be so pro-death penalty, you believed in it even to your own detriment.”

“The truth is...I’ve been utterly lost since my attack. My previous worldview led me to harm you, so some or all of it must be wrong. But how can I trust my own judgment after what I’ve done?”

“For what it’s worth, your ability to follow an argument or use logic has never been in question to me. It’s just that you had emotional biases. Logic is only a tool for arguing from a premise to a conclusion. If your emotions or a lack of information cause you to embrace an absurd premise, perfect logic does nothing for you.

“But you’re moving past your misconceptions—so even if you’re confused now, you should think of that as progress.”

“Still, it’s an awful feeling when the world stops making sense. Before, I supported my country above all else. I saw good and evil in the world as absolutes. Sometimes evil managed to disguise itself as good, but for the most part the lines were clearly drawn. Evil had to be sought out and punished harshly, as an example to others.” Clare hesitated. “That must sound childish to you.”

“Not at all. I don’t support the government our country has, but I still want the best outcome for the people within it. I may not believe in purely objective morality or acting out of retribution, but I still pass judgment on the actions of others. I have my own conception of human rights—and if some actions violate those rights, I condone using violence to stop them.

“But I don’t see punishment as a deterrent, at least not for violent crime. If murderers and rapists were capable of a dispassionate cost/benefit analysis that weighed in all consequences of their actions, they would not commit such acts in the first place. And it’s impossible to deter any criminal going on the assumption that they won’t be caught.

“If anything, I think a punitive approach to crime may even encourage more of it. If as a society we hold up revenge as an ideal—if we say ‘all those who have been wronged are entitled to retribution’—then why should we expect everyone to wait around for the state to hand out that retribution? If you send emotionally unstable people the message that they’re entitled to revenge, they’ll be that much more likely to turn to a criminal act to get it.

“Granted, I may be mixing up cause and effect slightly. It could be that if too many people have a desire for revenge, that leads to both more crime and more brutal punishments. But either way, I think if revenge is clearly labeled as a vice, that would help the situation. It’s useless from the standpoint of deterrence to say ‘revenge should only be allowed when justified,’ because everyone who commits a crime to get revenge is completely justified in their own mind.

“Another problem with punitive criminal justice is that it encourages eliminating witnesses and other crimes to avoid prison. Also, innocent people will inevitably be convicted of crimes—but then, you’ve already seen examples of that first hand.”

“Of course. ...I almost wish you’d said all of this to me much sooner, but I know I wouldn’t have listened.” Clare sighed. “When we first met, I took your compassion as mere weakness. But clearly you’ve thought all this through. So I’m left wondering what misconceptions I had about your anarchism as well.”

Sara hesitated. “I’m not sure if we should get into that—or if I was even right to discuss what I already did. Since you feel you’re indebted to me and I can’t convince you otherwise, that gives me undo influence. Maybe I shouldn’t be pushing my worldview on you.”

“I don’t need to believe all the same things you do to protect you. I’m comfortable with rejecting your politics if they don’t make sense to me.”

“In that case, I guess there’s no harm in explaining. But I should give you the same warning my attorney gave me on the outside. The company has been known to execute high profile troublemakers who push radical politics on the inmate population. It would tarnish the company’s brand if their game became a hive of anarchists.”

“Is it safe for you to discuss this then?” Clare asked, alarmed.

“One convert would hardly be high profile. Justine’s also an anarchist, and she’s talked about her views before without any reprimand. And it’s not as if a conversation this dry is going to end up on our show regardless.”

Clare nodded, and Sara continued. “Of course, I’m probably not the best person to explain all this—I’m by no means an expert on the subject. If we still had internet access, I’d point you toward ‘An Anarchist FAQ.’ But anyway, here goes...

“Basically, the usual conception people have of an anarchist is ‘someone who wants to overthrow the government.’ That’s such a gross oversimplification that it’s useless.

“The word anarchy literally means ‘no rulers.’ That’s different from having no rules. The vast majority of anarchists do support some form of organization. The idea that we desire chaos is just a result of misinformation.

“It’s hierarchy rather than organization that we’re against. Both political hierarchy—the state—and economic hierarchy—capitalism. We’re also against bigotry, which creates social hierarchy.

“The thing about hierarchy is that it’s like a factory for both ignorance and corruption. When you force people into a hierarchy, they naturally begin to compete within it. And those who rise almost inevitably see themselves as better people than those who don’t. That leads to a wide variety of unethical behavior, because ego gratification is addictive. Those addicted to power will do awful things not to lose it.

“Politicians and business leaders rightly have a reputation for dissembling. They use half-truths, lies of omission, and sometimes outright falsehoods to achieve and maintain their place in a hierarchy. They often use scapegoating to improve their popularity—an executive might pin his failure on a rival within the company, or a politician might unfairly put problems on a disliked social group or rival nation-state. Every time this scapegoating works, the people who fall for it become more ignorant—and therefore less qualified to make sensible decisions.

“Leaders engage in these behaviors because even if they fail sometimes, they work more often than not. This creates a selection pressure for dishonesty in a hierarchy—decent people may still rise through merit alone, but they’re at a disadvantage to those who have both talent and the ability to hide their lack of scruples. Even worse, someone who starts off completely well-intentioned can still become addicted to feeling superior. And then be corrupted in the effort not to lose that feeling.

“Certainly, some authority figures are much better or worse than others. Many have genuinely benevolent intentions towards those they control. But make no mistake, addiction to ego gratification is always a danger. Even those who retire or turn to philanthropy still expect to be accorded the respect they feel their accomplishments are due.

“Given all of this, the ideas of an ‘informed electorate’ or a ‘well-regulated economy’ are dubious under the current system. People are exposed to a constant stream of lies from their leaders, until many develop misguided or even destructive views. Likewise, political and economic leaders have massive incentive to collude with each other to increase their power. There’s bribery, regulatory capture, insider trading, price fixing, nepotism, and so forth. There’s a risk of getting caught if they do something illegal—but they help decide what is legal in the first place. Any regulation created can be quietly rolled back years later if there’s money to be made. And all the scapegoating often leaves people too uninformed to even recognize corruption. Everyone wants to believe their side is less corrupt.

“In the US, every generation has been utterly convinced that if they can only elect the right set of leaders, they will be able to reduce corruption to acceptable levels. And they’ve all failed. This is both because undue trust in authorities has left many too ignorant to make informed choices, and because even a politician with agreeable views on paper is no less likely to be corrupt.

“Contrary to the popular belief, I don’t see leaders as superior to the rest of us. They’re more charismatic and aggressive, but not necessarily more intelligent or wise. If anything, they’re probably less ethical than is typical.

“And if all this weren’t bad enough, let’s consider the people trapped at the bottom of these hierarchies. Having leaders make their fortunes off our work, and making decisions about how we’re allowed to live our lives creates a feeling of being powerless. No one likes having bosses and bureaucrats pushing them around.

“There’s nothing liberating about ‘voting with one’s dollar’ when there is wealth inequality. Little power is gained by electing a leader who will turn right around and try to manipulate you to their own ends. Often the politician you vote for may even lie about their intention to enact some parts of their stated agenda. Or be too incompetent to implement it correctly.

“We didn’t have freedom on the outside—we had a better illusion of it. I’ll grant that it’s certainly not impossible to feel happy when one is powerless, though it’s much more difficult. But if people are absolutely convinced they live in a free society by their emotional biases, they can’t blame their disquiet or the corruption they see on the system itself. That creates even more necessity for scapegoating.

“One can simply blame corruption on an opposing political party. But bigotry is another way misplaced anger can be expressed. And some try to feel special by latching onto conspiracy theories or other anti-intellectual views. Obsessive consumerism makes one feel more powerful than the have-nots. And I suspect that the misery caused by hierarchy also drastically increases societal issues with substance abuse, mental illness, and crime.”

“And this discord is worth abolishing the government?” Clare asked.

“The problems caused by competition within and between hierarchies go far beyond ignorance or small-scale crimes. In the US we’ve had many shameful chapters in our history. In school these are presented as aberrations, but they’ve happened so frequently I’d argue that they’re systemic—an inevitable result of how easily sociopaths and demagogues rise to the top of political, economic, and social hierarchies.

“If we consider a by no means exhaustive list of these occurrences... We have the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, the denial of many rights to anyone who wasn’t a white male property owner, company towns, and other absolutely brutal exploitation of workers—especially of minorities but including everyone, even children.

“A little more recently there was the Klan, the Japanese internment camps, the Tuskegee experiment, MKUltra, the Vietnam War, rampant privacy violations, and the overthrow of competing governments by the CIA—sometimes at the behest of corporations. US-based groups have pushed all sorts of horrible things on the rest of the world, from tainted medicines to Christian fundamentalism.

“As for the twenty-first century—”

“You’ve already made your point successfully. And I’m well aware of similar abuses during the modern era. ...I just blamed them on malignant individuals or leftist movements.”

“But you can see that there are reasons why such individuals are so likely to rise to the top?” Clare nodded. “In my view, the reason we can’t get past representative democracy and capitalism is that they sound so nice on paper. But what matters is the real world results. When you place all of humanity in a brutal competition for power, tragedy is inevitable.

“And sadly, the brutality is entirely sensible so long as hierarchy persists. A lack of money can lead to homelessness and suffering—corruption and crime are routes to avoid those outcomes. If advancing in a hierarchy lets one accomplish noble goals and feel better about oneself, isn’t that worth a few lies or shady deals? Your competitors are probably going to do the same.”

“I’m a little surprised that you’re just as critical of capitalism as you are of the government. Is that typical anarchists?”

“Yes. We see wage labor and rent-seeking activities as theft. They allow those who contribute little to no labor to amass vast wealth. A ‘right’ that only benefits a tiny, powerful elite is not a right—it’s an illegitimate privilege. The bottom ninety-nine percent of the population contributes nearly all the labor. So why are we deserving of so little control over how that labor is used?

“In our society, anger at such exploitation is taken as immaturity. One is just supposed to accept it as the inevitable order of things and move on. And I’ll admit that learning to be happy despite a lack of freedom is important to one’s well-being. But we shouldn’t doom every future generation to go through that struggle if we can avoid it.

“Then there’s all the inefficiency to consider. Relying on the ‘self-correcting’ nature of the market is insufficient. If someone I care about dies because a company is negligent, it’s no comfort at all that the company might be sued out of existence after the fact. There will always be another company willing to gamble on safety standards to be more competitive.

“And there’s so much work that’s wasted effort—the entire financial sector, endless regulatory agencies, and marketing. We create products to fill desires that wouldn’t have existed if not for said marketing. All these things only exist because of capitalism.”

“I’m not clear on what getting rid of capitalism entails exactly. Do you mean there won’t be any property?”

“Anarchists draw a distinction between personal possessions and private property. We oppose the latter. Every economic system has possessions. Property is things like office buildings or factories, something that cannot be of use to an individual owner except as a means to steal benefit from the labor of others. One truck for personal use is a possession—a fleet of trucks maintained by wage labor to form a transportation company is private property.

“I am completely unimpressed if someone who’s never worked a day in their life inherits a piece of paper saying that they own a building they’ve never even set foot in. It’s as absurd to me as a king’s ‘divine right’ to rule. And indulging the whims of the wealthy wastes people’s labor to a far greater extent than any small-time parasite.

“I understand why the middle class and the poor resent each other so—they’re fighting over the same crumbs off the plates of the wealthy. People who work resent paying taxes to support those who can’t or don’t.

“But if a capitalist decides to cut your pay or avoid a cost of living increase, and puts that money toward a yacht or a political cause you hate...how is that any better than a tax? Someone who abuses a welfare system steals far less money than someone who exploits tens of thousands of workers to become a billionaire. Should you be comforted that you can leave your job with one company for a job at another where the same will happen?

“And why resent a foreign worker who ‘steals’ your job? They do the same work as you and get paid less, and they’re just trying to avoid poverty and homelessness. It’s the capitalist who is pitting you both against each other who benefits. The truth is it never was your job—it’s always the capitalist or her chosen subordinate who decides if you’re allowed to be exploited.

“None of that is to say that some individual capitalists don’t make useful contributions to society as well. But who makes more money—someone who invents a cancer drug, or someone who owns the patent on that drug because they supplied the capital? The idea that we’re consistently rewarding merit is a fiction. ...And really, are we rewarding anyone at all? Do mansions and luxury cars actually increase happiness, or do they just give an addictive feeling of superiority?

“And let’s be clear, if a capitalist supplies money so architects can design a structure and construction workers can make it, she did not build that structure. She’s just a bureaucrat who used her money to give permission for others to build it. And her ‘risk’ is laughable to me—the capitalist’s absolute worst case scenario is that she’s forced to become a worker. Why should workers care?”

“I suppose I’m with you so far,” Clare admitted. “So I guess your solution to all this is getting rid of hierarchy?”

“Yes. The typical way to create an organization without hierarchy is via direct democracy and free association. Free association means both that the group cannot force itself on the individual, and the individual cannot force herself on the group. Both political and economic decisions can be made in this manner.”

“Doesn’t direct democracy lead to tyranny from the majority?”

“That’s what the free association part is for, to keep everything voluntary. If the majority abuse their power, the minority can cease cooperating with them. If the majority force the issue violently, they’re no longer anarchists and defending oneself from them is justified. There’s no reason it should come to that though, because it’s a horrible result for both sides.

“People can be expected to act in their own self-interest—in a hierarchy, self-interest is corruption and brutal competition. Outside of hierarchy, cooperation is the best way to get what one wants.

“I should mention that free association isn’t compatible with the state or capitalism. Then you get things like country clubs where political dealings were conducted away from the presence of minorities. And businesses discriminating against the same.

“Similarly, direct democracy doesn’t mix with representative democracy. A population that willingly submits to a hierarchy is almost certainly too angry and ill-informed to use direct democracy effectively. That’s why referendums can make things worse as often as they can improve a situation. The only way to learn how to do without a hierarchy is reject and resist the values it imposes.

“Also, I should be clear that direct democracy does not imply micromanaging technical decisions. Those can easily be delegated to someone with the necessary expertise. I’d have no desire to vote on what resources and how many hours of labor to allocate to maintaining infrastructure. That kind of thing can be be debated among those with the necessary education and experience so long as the majority agrees that is for the best.

“Oh, also an anarchist society would be ordered from the bottom up. An individual could voluntarily enter into or leave a local organization, and in turn those organizations could voluntarily cooperate with each other to manage things like large scale production or defense.

“There are certain necessary functions the state and capitalism provide currently that would need to be reproduced without them. Things like maintaining roads, new construction, research, addressing crime, and so on.”

“I would have figured anarchists would be for vigilante justice. But that doesn’t suit your temperament at all.”

“Some are, but in my opinion that would lead to too many innocent deaths. Though vigilante actions may be the lesser evil in some situations, compared to the failure of the current judicial system—I certainly wouldn’t condemn Death Legion for their actions on the outside.

“But still, I don’t see what they did as the ideal either. Things like evaluating evidence, humanely restraining those who prey on others, and even some form of jury trials could be accomplished without hierarchy.

“I can’t tell you for sure how a modern anarchist society would look, because everything would need to be debated and voted on. And different regions or organizations would have their own standards.”

“...I was about to ask how anarchists would handle military matters. But our party is an example, isn’t it?”

Sara laughed slightly. “You’re right. I guess it was a little sneaky of me, proposing that we run the party on direct democracy and free association while hiding that I was an anarchist.

“Of course, our party carries one exception to those principles by necessity. During combat there’s no time to vote. But I feel that a chain of command should only be allowed to exist within very short intervals. Otherwise, there’s a danger of a permanent hierarchy reemerging. This compromise could also be used when dealing with natural disasters.”

“I was also wondering, what’s the incentive to work without capitalism? There would be no money, I assume.”

Sara nodded. “The main incentive is that if no one contributes labor, the horrors of the old system would return. Also, labor has much more dignity when it isn’t coerced, or performed to make someone else wealthy. I think most people want some sense of accomplishment, and you can’t get that lazing about for decades on end.

“Social anarchists generally take the view that things like food, shelter, and medical care should be given to everyone. That way we can all live without the fear of losing those things. As for luxuries, access to them could potentially be used as additional incentive to contribute labor.”

“I realize the point is moot for us since we’ll likely be in this prison the rest of our lives, but how would anarchists go about replacing the current system? A violent revolution?”

“That’s hard to say. Anarchists have a lot of disagreement about how to handle violence. Some are eager for it, and even think assassinating authority figures is justified. Others are pacifists.

“I support violence in self-defense. And I think that people have the right to ignore state and capitalist power. If say, workers decide to ignore a capitalist’s claim on a factory and seize it for themselves, I’d support that. And if the capitalist tried to reassert her claim violently, I would consider her the aggressor because her ownership was a violation of rights as I see them. It’s irrelevant that a contract for wage labor was signed. Any contract that voids human rights is invalid.

“But whether or not we use totally peaceful tactics, violence will be used against anarchists as soon as we become a genuine threat. As I said, people in power are often addicted to it—if the norms of representative democracy fail to protect their power, most would be willing to adopt more authoritarian governance.

“If rights are granted by a state then they can be abridged by that same state. Free speech is allowed only to the extent that it doesn’t truly destabilize the system. Under normal circumstances it’s useful as a release valve for discontent. But it can be ignored when expedient.

“Of course, there’s no need for openly taking political prisoners when trumped up charges can easily be leveled against undesirable elements. I learned that the hard way,” Sara added regretfully. “Though I don’t know that my circumstances were part of a deliberate decision to target anarchists—it could just be that the authorities involved genuinely assumed I was guilty based on my views and their prejudice.”

Clare paused to consider. “I have another question—how did you view the world before you became an anarchist?”

“I used to have progressive, leftist views. But I see that agenda as too limited now. Programs like universal health care and basic income, even if they do alleviate suffering, are vulnerable to corruption and can always be weakened. All it takes is one charismatic politician promising lower taxes, less regulation, and more ‘freedom.’ Progressives can’t expect to stay in power indefinitely regardless of the effects of their policies—people blame their feelings of powerlessness, economic slowdowns, and all the corruption on the ruling party.

“And let’s not forget that a gilded cage is still a cage—eliminating poverty entirely would not automatically create a free society.

“There are some things, like the wealthy experiencing a vastly different criminal justice system than the poor, that can never be solved. Money and power will always corrupt political discourse in some way regardless of what reforms are imposed on the media or the electoral process.

“I now view the choice between US conservatives and liberals as false dichotomy, excluding social issues. We’re expected to choose between favoring corporate or government power when both are corrupt bureaucracies. We shouldn’t favor either of them just because they’re less brutal than alternative approaches such as dictatorships, theocracies, or state socialism.”

“Speaking of the last, where do Marxists fit into this?”

“Not all self-described Marxists are state socialists, but the ones who are can’t be considered genuine allies to anarchists. Marxist-Leninists have the goal of a stateless society, but they seek to accomplish that by installing their own government led by an intellectual vanguard. The purpose of this is to educate everyone on how they should live without a state. After this is accomplished, the state is supposed to ‘wither away.’

“History has shown this tactic to be worthless. People can’t learn how to reject authority by submitting to it. And socialists are no less vulnerable to abusing power, which is why every self-proclaimed Marxist state has been an abject failure. The Soviet Union was even complicit in the mass murder of anarchists in the Ukraine and Spain.

“As for Marx himself, he had useful observations on how the capitalist system functions. But anarchists can use those ideas without calling ourselves Marxists.”

Clare nodded. “I have one more concern, and please don’t take offense—but anarchists come off as a strange group on the whole.”

Sara laughed. “I can’t deny that. Fringe movements tend to attract unusual people. A lot of odd opinions float about, and some of them probably scare others off. Some anarchists glorify violence to an extent that makes me uncomfortable. They fail to understand that certain violent acts can be justified, but still be counter-productive toward defending innocent lives or advancing their goals.

“That isn’t to say that I support only acting within the bounds of what the state deems legal. Radical abolitionists were another group maligned as strange and violent extremists. They performed many illegal acts that improved lives, while reformers were content to let slaves suffer until some more convenient time far in the future.

“But today, the idea of using violence to stop human trafficking is the unremarkable mainstream. ...I hope that someday, anarchism will be unremarkable.”

Both women fell silent for a time. “If we were in the real world, I’d probably need a glass of water right about now,” Sara joked. Clare smiled slightly.

“I’ll probably have more questions for you once I can organize my thoughts. But for now...anarchism does appeal to me. I can’t believe I’m saying that, as someone who was a committed nationalist.

“But I realize now that I only latched onto those views to avoid seeing myself as responsible for my parents’ deaths. That led to the real reason I wanted to join the military—to try to make up for what I thought they’d done.”

“I understand,” Sara told her solemnly. “If nothing else, I hope you can replace some point of view where you don’t feel lost any longer.”

“I suppose the company wouldn’t allow any anarchist works into the library, would they?”

Sara laughed. “Probably not. But it’s possible something anti-authoritarian like A People’s History of the United States might have slipped through. Do you want to look?”

“Okay. But before that...I just want to thank you for being concerned about me. And for spending time with me, even when I was so cold to you. Thank you for everything you’ve done.” Tears started to form in Clare’s eyes. “I know it sounds crazy, but I feel like ending up in here was worth it just to meet you. ...But I don’t have anyone on the outside, so I can say that.”

“Clare...I’m really moved that you feel that way. I miss my family too much to be able to say the same. But if I were offered a pardon tomorrow, I couldn’t bring myself to leave you here to fight without me. I want to stay by your side.”

She tried to hold back, but Clare burst into sobbing. “I don’t deserve to have you in my life!” She suddenly grabbed the healer and held her tight.

Sara was too surprised to react immediately. But she then returned the hug. “It’s okay. I think you deserve all the happiness in the world. I wish it were easy to replace in a place like this.” She looked up toward the other woman. “But whatever happens, you’ll always be my shield-maiden.” Knowing how much Clare had suffered pained Sara. The healer felt as if she would do almost anything just to see her friend genuinely happy.

Clare nodded gratefully. She was some time in recovering, but eventually the two women stepped apart. With one last glance over the city, the pair proceeded back into the library.