(Note: If you haven't yet, please read Part 1 and Part 2 of the "Ostracization" series! Thank you!)
In bringing this series to its conclusion, I would like to do a brief recap of what all has been established in the previous parts. Afterwards, I'll tie the explanations I've given before about the definition and the two mentioned scenarios that exemplify the application of ostracization with how this can apply to other scenarios, including the one currently present within the Minds.com community. In short, we know that:
1.) Ostracization is defined as, "to exclude, by general consent, from society, friendship, conversation, privileges, etc."
2.) The first and most influential catalyst in the decision to ostracize a person or group is one's sense of "justice" and/or the State's failing in exacting "justice" deemed appropriate by one's subjective sense of the application of the term.
3.) "Justice" through a system of penalizing the accused through incarceration and introducing them to the parole system is statistically ineffective, with a rate of 49% being rearrested and 31% being re-convicted of the same or a new federal offense.
4.) Ostracization utilizing State authority violates the natural rights of the accused to their life, property, and the ability to protect their own life and seek residence in other communities.
5.) Ostracization using voluntary action does NOT violate natural rights and utilizes free speech and the refusal of services (provided by those who engage in the ostracization) to press the accused into appealing to the community OR into leaving the community.
6.) Any threats or acts of violence committed by individuals is NOT ostracization, but a violation of natural rights separate from the act of ostracization.
7.) Using the state to ostracize an individual or group CANNOT by considered ostracization, but actively aggressing against the natural rights of the accused AND by forcing taxpayers to pay for the process of doing so (which is dependent on how badly State officials wish to harass and prosecute them).
You, the reader, might be objecting, saying, "So what is there to stop communities or individuals from acting like the State? Why couldn't they push people into re-offending, committing other crimes, or hurting themselves just like the State does? Can't people also ostracize others that don't deserve it, pushing them to commit crimes, harm themselves, or be unjustly pushed out of the community?"
For the first two questions, I would restate the fact that any time someone uses force or the threat of force to get people to do what they want, this is a violation of one's natural rights and is immoral. If you are in a community and are ostracizing a person or group, you should both reach out to those who threaten/commit acts of violence to stop them from doing so in the future and make it known within the community, as well as communities outside of your own, that you do not support nor condone those kinds of actions.
Granted, you can do very little to stop someone threatening or bringing harm to someone else beyond being present to do so. The only way you can morally and ethically combat that kind of violence is to speak out against it, to make it known that no one within the community is advocating for any violation of the rights of the accused. Using force to prevent further violence being committed should ONLY take place when there is sufficient, undeniable proof that the accused can and will commit an act of violence again immediately.
As for the last question, the honest answer is that yes, communities are capable of ostracizing people who haven't earned it or do so for the wrong reasons. We see this happen in cases like the Ferguson riots, where communities had gotten together to protest the acquittal of Officer Darren Wilson and ended up rioting against the police, resulting in multiple arrests and injuries, as well as several business properties being damaged/destroyed. This happens when communities allow themselves to turn into a mob looking for street justice or when people act with ignorance (willful or not) to the facts revolving around the situation.
In order to prevent these kinds of situations from happening, as people have been shown to do, is to become educated with the known facts associated with allegations levied against the accused, wait until there is sufficient, undeniable evidence to prove the accused committed a crime, and then organize yourselves in a coordinated, civil fashion to confront the accused and let your wishes be known. Once all of these things have been established, you can retain the right to refuse them services and goods IF you are being solicited for the sale of said services and goods. You can also refuse the renewal of any contractual agreements and cancel any agreements made, so long as they do not directly inflict harm or places them or anyone else associated in harm's way.
The fact of the matter is that there will always be cases where someone is wronged, just as there will always be cases where people let their emotions get the better of them and act irrationally. If a community chooses to ostracize you, in spite of evidence proving your innocence and attempts to appease, that's not a good community that you want to live in. Just as many of us moved away from Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and WordPress to better social media sites with stronger, intelligent community members, it should be encouraged that we move away from self-destructing communities.
Having a few village idiots within the community that advocate for violence should call for a peaceful approach, not one that requires force and the violation of natural rights. Ostracization is nothing more than the exercise of peaceful, voluntary expression of opinions and the refusal to service/accept accused person(s) within the community.
There will be the small exceptions where people decide to let their fears and anger get them and resort to force, but most would rather hear all of the facts and then engage the accused in a civil manner. The slippery-slope fallacy of people who ostracize others will turn to mob rule tactics to get what they want is bunk. We should not let it discourage us from voicing our opinions and becoming a stronger, well-connected community.