Ignoring whether it's realistic or not, would a good solution be a law saying that landlords may only earn profits from rents that are people's second (ie. not primary) homes?
Edit: Ok, I just realized that what I wrote is nonsense
Beau has stated before that he was involved in some awful stuff. But I agree with a commenter on the video: while it is important to not hide past doings, a lot more of society needs to accept that people can, and do, change.
This is someone who very clearly did something wrong, but he also did his time and is now working on further paying back society. It doesn't make what he did go away, but I also don't know why suddenly so many people are wanting to 'expose' him. He isn't in any position to repeat his actions, his current actions are inarguably for the betterment of society as a whole, as well as for individuals in need in his own community and others.
Even if you can't get past what he did, I would ask: what exactly would it take for you to say that he has paid for what he did? Anarchism explicitly calls for the abolition of prisons and our current legal structure, and Beau has (in my opinion) paid for his actions both within the current system and outside of it. After someone has done their time, so to speak, are they barred from society until the end of days? If not, then what would they need to do to be accepted that Beau hasn't done?
I ask these questions, not as someone who is trying to cause issues or argue, but as someone with a lot of respect for this movement. I ask because I genuinely want to know what people expect from people like Beau through an anarchist lens.
I like that you've read comments on the video. I think you should watch the video itself or read the transcript. The author isn't seeking Beau's further incarceration or some other form of vengeance. Anarchism does seek the abolition of police and prisons, and Card's interest in restorative justice over punishment is consistent with this kind of anarchism.
Justin King / Beau is not "barred from society" or even anarchist society, and that's not what Card is advocating. This is a discussion among anarchists about credence, not incarceration. You can't institutionalize trust; Card is providing his own assessment as well as information essential for anyone to make up their own mind.
I did watch the video. I also read the sources at the bottom of the video, and like several other comments noticed, the documents do not support a lot of the claims made in the video. However, even if they were supported by the documents, I still don't agree with the stance of the video.
The argument is that because he did something bad at one point, people should consider his past actions before any of his current ones, and that this justifies distrust of his current actions. When we live and operate in a world where trust is necessary for cooperation and survival, even suggesting to distrust someone indefinitely for long past actions and ignoring all steps taken to remedy is asking for him to be barred from that society.
It also assumes that the only reason people would support him is if they were unaware of his past actions, and they heavily imply that people who do trust him are unable to make sound decisions, not in the least by doing one of the least anarchist things possible by trusting the words of government entities known for targeting leftists and charging them with exaggerated crimes.
You are right that you can't institutionalize trust, but I am calling out a pattern that I am recognizing of people who advocate for this particular social model being unwilling to put their money where their mouth is in regards to acknowledging and supporting input from people with convictions or marred histories. The video states nothing new and instead is continuing to repeat this 'questioning' without accounting for the fact that this questioning has already taken place and done nothing except draw people away from a community that values direct action and social support.
If his past had anything to do with his current content and actions, I agree more scrutiny would be needed. But my question still stands, what should the guidelines be for deciding that a person no longer deserves to have their participation in society treated as suspect or worthy of excess questioning? At what point do people deserve to be allowed to change and exist without their motive being questioned?
yt.artemislena.eu
Top