Crime after the revolution

[fashbasher 5000]

One thing that often comes up in debate or discussion when people find out that I'm an anarchist is the issue of crime in a stateless society. While the attitudes and circumstances that lead to crime are largely products of capitalism, it seems naive to think that nothing of the sort will happen at all.

Voluntary sanctions by the community are the only potential punishment I can think of offhand that doesn't reek of statism. Any other ideas/further detail?

[Vincent]

I've just posted a thread in the Philosophy forum that looks at different accounts of punishment. You might find it helpful. However, if we deal specifically with a 'stateless' society there are many difficulties in working out how punishment is to work; who is to administer it, and what crimes are deemed punishable? I think this is what you're picking up on.

This is one point of anarchism that might be considered a weakness. If you use the idea of voluntary sanctions by the community, you then have the practical problem of 'are we all to decide on each case by itself?'. Such an approach is impracticable and the immediate solution would be to establish two things. 1) a representative body, working according to the wishes of the wider community and 2) a system of precedent - many crimes are alike and it would take years to hear out every case individually. And if this looks very familiar, it is. This is how common law countries work. A problem with this way of doing things is that the representative body doesn't necessarily represent the interests of society, and the establishment of precedent only entrenches that representative bodies' own doctrines of crime and punishment into the overall system.

Then there is civil law, which doesn't work on precedent, just a whole lot of 'principles'. But, someone has to decide what is punishable and what punishment is required, and this in turn this must be enforceable. And then you get the beginnings of a state.

Its a pickle, and I can't work it out.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I believe in a true communist society the need to steal will completely disappear and this will no longer be something to worry about. I have discussed this before and come to the conclusion that crimes which will exist in such a society will be crimes of passion. Things done in the heat of the moment or people by people who have serious mental issues. The only way to deal with this sort of crime is through a method of rehabilitation where the community will support the perpetrator and the victim and help both to make a full recovery.

[Vincent]

I believe in a true communist society the need to steal will completely disappear and this will no longer be something to worry about. I have discussed this before and come to the conclusion that crimes which will exist in such a society will be crimes of passion. Things done in the heat of the moment or people by people who have serious mental issues. The only way to deal with this sort of crime is through a method of rehabilitation where the community will support the perpetrator and the victim and help both to make a full recovery.

Perhaps. What if I build a lovely boat, and you steal it because you can't build one yourself for lack of skill, and I won't give it to you because it is dear to me? People steal for lots of reasons, not only lack of wealth. Some people have conduct disorders and they just do it for the hell of it.

And, I think there are clear cases of crimes which are possible outside of passion, within a communist society. Say I am going to have babies with your sister, you don't want me to and you premeditate my murder?

Basically, I think crime can happen in any society, and cannot be simply attributed to socio-economic conditions alone.

But the idea of rehabilitation sounds good, especially as a replacement for punishment. However, rehabilitation will not prevent other people from committing crime, but it depends if you think that's a problem or not.

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe in a true communist society the need to steal will completely disappear and this will no longer be something to worry about. I have discussed this before and come to the conclusion that crimes which will exist in such a society will be crimes of passion. Things done in the heat of the moment or people by people who have serious mental issues.
Except that we don't know this, and the most annoying thing about threads on crime in Revleft is that practically everybody goes around saying, "Crime will decrease rapidly under socialism," though we don't know this, even though the question is what is to be done with it.
I'd say that we'd need some studies and scientific research on this kind of thing before we can come up with a final solution. The general aims would be to keep crime to a minimum and rehabilitate criminals, the former would probably necessitate some form of punishment, though punishment 'because they're criminal assholes' can shove it. Also, the death penalty should be legal, but it should also be legal to kill anybody administering it. Still, punishments can't 'reek of statism' without a state.

[apathy maybe]

This is one point of anarchism that might be considered a weakness. If you use the idea of voluntary sanctions by the community, you then have the practical problem of 'are we all to decide on each case by itself?'. Such an approach is impracticable and the immediate solution would be to establish two things. 1) a representative body, working according to the wishes of the wider community and 2) a system of precedent - many crimes are alike and it would take years to hear out every case individually.
Why is it impracticable?


And if this looks very familiar, it is. This is how common law countries work. A problem with this way of doing things is that the representative body doesn't necessarily represent the interests of society, and the establishment of precedent only entrenches that representative bodies' own doctrines of crime and punishment into the overall system.
A possible fix would be to rotate all members of the "representative body", so that there is no entrenching happening.


Then there is civil law, which doesn't work on precedent, just a whole lot of 'principles'. But, someone has to decide what is punishable and what punishment is required, and this in turn this must be enforceable. And then you get the beginnings of a state.
There is a simple principle, it is called, "live and let live". There is another one called, "do no harm". Variants continue along these lines. Oh, and the self defence principle. That's one I've expanded upon in other posts.

I also suggest this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law


Its a pickle, and I can't work it out.
You don't need to worry too hard. You aren't the only one building the Future. When the time comes, different communities will try different things, the best option will soon propagate.


Except that we don't know this, and the most annoying thing about threads on crime in Revleft is that practically everybody goes around saying, "Crime will decrease rapidly under socialism," though we don't know this, even though the question is what is to be done with it.
Define crime.

Look at the statistics. If most "crime" is related to property, then it is sensible to say that under an economic system where everything is "free" (though the term wouldn't make sense in such a system), then most or all property related "crime" will not exist.

[Vincent]

Why is it impracticable?

Well, its not impossible. It just that for every theft, assault, or any other action that could be taken in court you would have to decide each case from scratch - without reference to anything that's been said on similar cases. Now, sure, we can do that. But the judicial system would be useless - it would take stupidly long to make decisions.

A possible fix would be to rotate all members of the "representative body", so that there is no entrenching happening.

Absolutely. I guess an opposite example would be the Supreme Court in the US. As far as i understand an appointment is life-long, yes? Current judicial systems would benefit greatly from a rotational system.

There is a simple principle, it is called, "live and let live". There is another one called, "do no harm". Variants continue along these lines. Oh, and the self defence principle. That's one I've expanded upon in other posts.

Sure, but what I was getting at was that any principle would need to be justified. A collective could do it, perhaps? Although, for me, a recognition of the multiplicity of comprehensive conceptions of 'what is good' is one the most important things any society needs to have .. so any such collective would either have to be a) completeley and comprehensivley representative of society, or b) completely impartial to their own, or anyone elses, interests so that any principles will benefit all of humanity equally. This is where Rawls has influenced me... alot!


Look at the statistics. If most "crime" is related to property, then it is sensible to say that under an economic system where everything is "free" (though the term wouldn't make sense in such a system), then most or all property related "crime" will not exist.

Property crime is, as you say, kind of a moot idea in a property-less society. But there are also crimes of negligence, assault, discrimination, intellectual theft, bodily harm, murder. But, to be realistic, there would be SOME property related crime - I don't think anyone would accept having their clothes taken from them, even if they don't really 'own' them - for example.

[apathy maybe]

Sure, but what I was getting at was that any principle would need to be justified.
You don't need to justify those principles, they are inherent in anarchism.


Property crime is, as you say, kind of a moot idea in a property-less society. But there are also crimes of negligence, assault, discrimination, intellectual theft, bodily harm, murder. But, to be realistic, there would be SOME property related crime - I don't think anyone would accept having their clothes taken from them, even if they don't really 'own' them - for example.
Anything that infringes on a person's right to life and freedom could potentially be considered a "crime". You don't need to go further.

You don't need to specifically "outlaw" assault, murder, and similar, 'cause they are already "outlawed" by the principle of "do no harm".

"Intellectual theft" sounds pretty meaningless to me, you mean someone "stole" someone else's intelligence? I guess that would fall under "do no harm".

Discrimination? I think it is fair to say that as society processes, problems such as this go away. We have already seen this in capitalism with queer folk basically being recognised by the "state" in most "western" countries as having the "full" (well, almost the full), legal rights as straight folk. Same with racism and sexism. It is no longer acceptable, generally, to be racist or sexist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Except that we don't know this, and the most annoying thing about threads on crime in Revleft is that practically everybody goes around saying, "Crime will decrease rapidly under socialism," though we don't know this, even though the question is what is to be done with it.
I'd say that we'd need some studies and scientific research on this kind of thing before we can come up with a final solution. The general aims would be to keep crime to a minimum and rehabilitate criminals, the former would probably necessitate some form of punishment, though punishment 'because they're criminal assholes' can shove it. Also, the death penalty should be legal, but it should also be legal to kill anybody administering it. Still, punishments can't 'reek of statism' without a state.

Seems like your contradicting yourself. Death penalty is a sick thing we should not wish to see reconstituted in a Communist society. What other reason would there be to use the death penalty than because 'they're criminal assholes'. Because there isn't. The death penalty has no purpose.

[ZeroNowhere]

Seems like your contradicting yourself. Death penalty is a sick thing we should not wish to see reconstituted in a Communist society. What other reason would there be to use the death penalty than because 'they're criminal assholes'. Because there isn't. The death penalty has no purpose.
I think you missed the second part of the sentence.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think you missed the second part of the sentence.

I don't quite understand what you mean? Please explain:

"but it should also be legal to kill anybody administering it."

[Vincent]

Anything that infringes on a person's right to life and freedom could potentially be considered a "crime". You don't need to go further.

No I don't, really. But you've made my point for me - do you really think the only thing that infringes on people's right to life and freedom is property crime? No. Thus, it is reasonable to expect crime which could infringe on a person's right to life or freedom in any society, regardless of the 'existence' of property.



"Intellectual theft" sounds pretty meaningless to me, you mean someone "stole" someone else's intelligence? I guess that would fall under "do no harm".

Not quite - intellectual theft is a crime relating to intellectual property law. Now, I know in the kind of society we're speaking of, property is a no-no. But, intellectual property laws are designed to stimulate original thought and discussion (in the same way that privatization is supposed to stimulate technology and development, or whatever). They protect authors, artists and so on from plagiarism and other such 'things' - but they generally recognize the creators ownership of an idea, piece of music, book, painting, whatever. I think there would be a case for extending some kind of intellectual rights into a anarchistic society.

[apathy maybe]

No I don't, really. But you've made my point for me - do you really think the only thing that infringes on people's right to life and freedom is property crime? No. Thus, it is reasonable to expect crime which could infringe on a person's right to life or freedom in any society, regardless of the 'existence' of property.

No, and I never said that all "crime" would disappear either.


Not quite - intellectual theft is a crime relating to intellectual property law. Now, I know in the kind of society we're speaking of, property is a no-no. But, intellectual property laws are designed to stimulate original thought and discussion (in the same way that privatization is supposed to stimulate technology and development, or whatever). They protect authors, artists and so on from plagiarism and other such 'things' - but they generally recognize the creators ownership of an idea, piece of music, book, painting, whatever. I think there would be a case for extending some kind of intellectual rights into a anarchistic society.
I know what it is, and I think it is bullshit. How are you going to enforce copyright without a police force? How are you going to determine what length copyright should be, without a parliament?

And that's only one aspect of "intellectual property" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html).

Have you any proof that these laws actually stimulate original thought and discussion? Is it really the case that authors and artists are more likely to produce work because they know that 70 years after they are dead people still won't be able to legally copy their work?

Are you only motivated by copyright to write these posts? I'm personally more motivated by communicating and teaching than the fact that I'll have copyright over what I've written here.

Do you think that Mozart was motivated by copyright? (He wasn't paid royalties on his work, he was paid to produce the work only.)
Do you think that Shakespeare cared about copyright? Indeed, many of his works were based on older plays and things.

There are many good arguments against copyright, and few good for. I suggest you think about whether or not you actually think that copyright is required in a Free society or not.


----

Oh, and trademarks are completely different, they do nothing to stimulate free thought etc. They are merely used to make sure that consumers don't get confused between two different, but similar, products.

[Invariance]

Yes, a police force will be required, at least for the immediate future and beyond that is speculation. There will still be some whom hurt other people, and there will need to be an effective force to help those people in need. Having a rotating police force would be unpractical for two reasons. Firstly, not everyone has the desire or inkling to be a police officer, and nor should they be required to do so if they don't want to. Secondly, permanency is required, to maintain trust with the community, and for those police officers to gain the necessary experience. The required training and experience to be a police officer would take several years at least, and it would be a total waste of resources to continuously retrain people when people who have already been trained and do have the desire to work the job exist. This is even ignoring the years of tertial education required to study forensics and so forth.


You don't need to justify those principles, they are inherent in anarchism. Then anarchism needs to be justified.

[fashbasher 5000]

Yes, a police force will be required, at least for the immediate future and beyond that is speculation. There will still be some whom hurt other people, and there will need to be an effective force to help those people in need. Having a rotating police force would be unpractical for two reasons. Firstly, not everyone has the desire or inkling to be a police officer, and nor should they be required to do so if they don't want to. Secondly, permanency is required, to maintain trust with the community, and for those police officers to gain the necessary experience. The required training and experience to be a police officer would take several years at least, and it would be a total waste of resources to continuously retrain people when people who have already been trained and do have the desire to work the job exist. This is even ignoring the years of tertial education required to study forensics and so forth.


A police force is a de facto state if they have a monopoly on legitimate violence. I have a problem with that.

[Invariance]

A police force is a de facto state if they have a monopoly on legitimate violence. Even in a bourgeois state, legitimate violence extends beyond the police to situations where self-defence is appropriate, and provocation can offer a complete defence for lesser crimes. Further, the whole concept of proletarian dictatorship is that the working class has a complete monopoly on violence which precludes the former ruling class.


I have a problem with that. I have a problem with the idea that I, or anyone else, wouldn't have access to immediate help if so needed. Merely because something is rotated every so often doesn't mean that it is no longer a state; parliament could rotate every week, and they would still be a state. So even in the ideal anarchist world, a rotating 'police milita' would still be a state. Typically, they just dress it up in a different name to avoid the issue altogether.

[Vincent]

I know what it is, and I think it is bullshit.

Then why did you try to decieve us with this little gem:


"Intellectual theft" sounds pretty meaningless to me, you mean someone "stole" someone else's intelligence?


Have you any proof that these laws actually stimulate original thought and discussion? Is it really the case that authors and artists are more likely to produce work because they know that 70 years after they are dead people still won't be able to legally copy their work?

No, I have no proof. Bu, I think your focus on copyright and patents is beside the point. I said:


They [intellectual property laws] protect authors, artists and so on from plagiarism and other such 'things' - but they generally recognize the creators ownership of an idea, piece of music, book, painting, whatever. I think there would be a case for extending some kind of intellectual rights into a anarchistic society. What do I envisage as the type of intellectual rights that could be extended into an anarchistic society? Well, plagiarism, basically. I don't think intellectual property laws which protect royalties and profits have any justification in an anarchist society, but I do think there good reasons for recognising the ownership of a work by its author/artist/whatever. For example, perhaps an original book should be considered as the personal private property of the author - given that the author will probably want to distribute that book (for free), it only seems appropriate that his or her original contributions to whatever discipline are recognised and protected against theft. This, I think works in the same way that my toothbrush - as my personal private property - somehow needs to be recognised as such, and protected against theft.

A few posts ago you said this, apathy_maybe:


You don't need to justify those principles, they are inherent in anarchism. A principles' inherentness with a system does not constitute its justification. There are plenty of principles inherent in capitalism - that you no doubt disagree with - but do you think they are justified because they are inherent?

[apathy maybe]

Then why did you try to decieve us with this little gem:
I was trying to draw attention to the meaningless of the concept. I didn't realise my fake ignorance would be taken seriously.


[stuff about plagiarism and 'author recognition rights]
Do you know what free software (Free, Libre, Open Source Software) is?

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
In other words, free software lets you do what you like with the software. Most licences normally have a restriction based on recognising the origin of the software (the original author). This doesn't stop the software being free, as it is still possible to do what you like with it.

Generally speaking, most people who write free software don't have the capacity to hunt down and sue people who break the licence. The licence is in effect, for most people, an honour system.

And you know what? It works.

But, if you do find someone who is distributing your work, and pretending it is theirs, what can you do? Why, you go to the state.

In an anarchist society, there is no state. There is no possibility to sue or prosecute someone who is ripping off your work.

Oh, and I could also go on about academia.

So, what is the solution in an anarchist society? I'm sure something about reputation and honour would work. But there can't be any laws because there are no parliaments, no courts, no police to enforce the laws etc. The recognition of an author has nothing to do with "intellectual property". It makes it a lot clearer if you don't use confusing terms.



A few posts ago you said this, apathy_maybe:

You don't need to justify those principles, they are inherent in anarchism.
A principles' inherentness with a system does not constitute its justification. There are plenty of principles inherent in capitalism - that you no doubt disagree with - but do you think they are justified because they are inherent?

Then anarchism needs to be justified.
I personally don't think I need to justify anarchism at all. If you reject the ideas at the base of anarchism (oppression is bad, social hierarchy is bad, freedom is good (replacing good and bad with "desirable" and "undesirable" or similar if required/desired)), then there is no helping you.

I don't accept capitalism, or the principles inherent in it, because I reject the foundation of capitalism. If you reject the foundation of anarchism, then I can't justify the principles I mentioned. If you don't, then those principles lead naturally from the foundation.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The question of what's acceptable violence plagues all anarchists, and it can be answered differently based on your attention to the non-aggression principle. Some anarchists think even initiating harm or imprisonment unto a murderer would be a violation of anarchist principles; others do not. I think the problem with our current understanding of anarchism is that too many people view it as an end goal rather than a point to strive for - the diminishing of power to the smallest degree possible - that point before a larger force is required to maintain perceived "freedom."

So while yes, technically, forcing a murderer or rapist to appear in court is on some levels authoritarian, I wouldn't dismiss it as antagonistic towards anarchism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The question of what's acceptable violence plagues all anarchists, and it can be answered differently based on your attention to the non-aggression principle. Some anarchists think even initiating harm or imprisonment unto a murderer would be a violation of anarchist principles; others do not. I think the problem with our current understanding of anarchism is that too many people view it as an end goal rather than a point to strive for - the diminishing of power to the smallest degree possible - that point before a larger force is required to maintain perceived "freedom."

So while yes, technically, forcing a murderer or rapist to appear in court is on some levels authoritarian, I wouldn't dismiss it as antagonistic towards anarchism.

You bring up a very good point. I am the type of Anarchist who as you say feels initiating imprisonment or harm unto a murderer would be a violation of Anarchist principles. You mentioned the point about an end point or a point to strive for. I do not see how this would mean we should not try to organise as Anarchistic in principle as possible prior to revolution.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I believe in a true communist society the need to steal will completely disappear and this will no longer be something to worry about. I have discussed this before and come to the conclusion that crimes which will exist in such a society will be crimes of passion. Things done in the heat of the moment or people by people who have serious mental issues. The only way to deal with this sort of crime is through a method of rehabilitation where the community will support the perpetrator and the victim and help both to make a full recovery.

I was debating this today and couldn't think of suitable answer, but I now have sort of one in this very useful post, thanks.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I was debating this today and couldn't think of suitable answer, but I now have sort of one in this very useful post, thanks.

That's ok comrade. I am glad you agree with me. This is one of the arguments I am most interested in within the belief of Anarchism. There are those completely against any sort of punishment or prison (which is my stance) and those who believe punishment, and even sometimes death is necessary. To me this seems the complete antithesis of the idea of Anarchism and I have no desire for this method of bourgeois justice to continue in our society.

[swampfox]

In an ideal society crime will be virtually wiped out after the revolution due to know more capitalism. However it is in some people's nature to commit crimes that harm other people. Anarchy at it its truest form permits no rules and no enforcement of any kind.

Unfortunately, Anarchy can't work like that. There must be some basic law in society that states crime is illegal, whereas crime is defined as harming another human being.

[DIzzIE]

You don't appear to have answered all of apathy maybe's questions--questions your answers to which I too am interested in--so I'll be sure to number mine so that you don't overlook them.


perhaps an original book should be considered as the personal private property of the author

1. Why?

For the moment allowing that an 'original book' could exist--a notion which I find doubtful, but which is only tangential to this particular statement so I'll overlook it for now--why then should this "original book" be considered the personal property of the author? Why shouldn't it be considered the collective property of the entire cosmos?

Furthermore,

(I)
given that the author will probably want to distribute that book (for free)

how does it then follow that:

(II)
it only seems appropriate that his or her original contributions to whatever discipline are recognised and protected against theft

?

You seem to have magically glossed over the initial problem of how can the contributions be susceptible to theft in the first place, and just started talking about protecting them from 'theft', what the fuck? So let me formally ask you:

2. How, pray tell, can the 'original contributions' be rendered susceptible to theft?

And finally then,

3. Why is all of this then seen by you as 'appropriate'? You seem to have tossed in a good deal of isolated terms (which are themselves questionable) like 'original contributions', 'author', 'theft', and then strung them together using words like 'appropriate' or 'should be considered'...but with no actual justification for this stream of non-sequiturs.

On the other hand, let's say there's a collective pool of knowledge, a 'creative commons' to use the term currently hip in popular parlance on the topic. Let us then say that someone thoroughly enjoys the fruits of this collective data pool, perhaps arranging particular elements into certain intriguing formulations (ie, let's say formulating copious texts using a particular language), and then that someone takes this particular formulation of data (ie. a body of work), slaps a syntactic shackle on it (ie. (c)), and says that no one else is entitled to lay claim to it save for The Author--is this blatant privatization not 'theft' of a community resource?

To then turn around and say that it is this enclosed artifact of gross congealment, this 'original contribution' that you glorify that is the one that must be protected from theft is a sad joke indeed!

The author function is at best a classification function akin to genre: a piece of metadata about the text which can be used to group varying texts together (say, if I want to read all works in the Mystery genre, or all works written by Stephen King, there is no difference between the function of genre and author). The other author functions are ones propagated by egoism (the desire to stroke one's ego, to write oneself into an authoritarian role of Creator, that is to literally say God), as well as by a desire for control and enclosure (the desire to privatise information by giving control to the aforementioned conjured Lord Creator).

On the topic of plagiarism in general, I'd suggest reading Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality, and Electronic Cultural Production (http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/ted5.pdf) to gain a different perspective of 'plagiarism' than the authoritarian one you seem to be espousing, since I was actually thinking that I was looking at WIPO (http://www.wipo.int) propaganda when reading your posts on the topic of IP laws.

[Vincent]

For the moment allowing that an 'original book' could exist--a notion which I find doubtful, but which is only tangential to this particular statement so I'll overlook it for now

Thankyou for your mercy, oh great one. Perhaps, my lord, I should have put in more specific terms - I know you're mind cannot cope with the simple, wise lord - and I should have said 'an original synthesis of ideas'. Please, spare me from the workers milita, oh great wise lord.


why then should this "original book" be considered the personal property of the author? Why shouldn't it be considered the collective property of the entire cosmos?

Tell me, what would the entire cosmos want with a book? But that is tangential to your question - I shall overlook it.... for now.

I suppose you're one of those people who think of wikipedia as a definitve authority on any given subject?

It's not, and authors are recognised as authors for good reasons. The least of which is that it stops idiot teenagers writing articles about Marxist economic theories which are misleading and poorly written, and then having them considered 'authority', when they are absolute rubbish. The second might be to stop idiot teenagers spouting lines from reputable authors and pretending that they came up with them when they fail to make reference to those authors...


You seem to have magically glossed over the initial problem of how can the contributions be susceptible to theft in the first place, and just started talking about protecting them from 'theft', what the fuck? So let me formally ask you:

2. How, pray tell, can the 'original contributions' be rendered susceptible to theft?

My bad. Original contributions = original synthesis of ideas. Theft = not when some hoe steals my book - which they couldn't if I was giving it away freeeeeee, but when they blatently rip it off, use blocks of text without reference, generally pretend its their idea when its not. It's like ... you stole my brainzz. Yeah. Fuck, I shouldnt have to explain myself like this. But, hey, if you're going to go on and say 'but, you cant, like, owwwn stuff .. maaaaan' ... I will never be able to explain myself you.



And finally then,

3. Why is all of this then seen by you as 'appropriate'? You seem to have tossed in a good deal of isolated terms (which are themselves questionable) like 'original contributions', 'author', 'theft', and then strung them together using words like 'appropriate' or 'should be considered'...but with no actual justification for this stream of non-sequiturs.

Huh? You seem to want to question words alot ... it's like you think 'authors' don't exist, and 'theft' is impossible because 'you can't like, owwwwwn stuff, maaaan.' Justify yourself, man! Should I have used formal logic, rather than an unjustified stream of non-sequiters linking questionable words like author, theft and original contribution?


dribble about creative commons, it being impossible to owwwn stufff maaaaan, and other things.

Why don't you post as a guest then? Stop privatising stuff, man... Stop reaping the benefits of the inteerrrr-webb.


On the topic of plagiarism in general, I'd suggest reading Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality, and Electronic Cultural Production (http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/ted5.pdf) to gain a different perspective of 'plagiarism' than the authoritarian one you seem to be espousing, since I was actually thinking that I was looking at WIPO (http://www.wipo.int) propaganda when reading your posts on the topic of IP laws.

You're right, I was an authoritarian. Then I read this literature and converted. Please spare me from the firing squad when the revolution comes.

[Comrade Anarchist]

in a anarcho communist society most crime will probably disappear but the remaining crime must be punished by a majority vote in the commune of the crime.

[DIzzIE]

For the moment allowing that an 'original book' could exist--a notion which I find doubtful, but which is only tangential to this particular statement so I'll overlook it for now
Thankyou for your mercy, oh great one. Perhaps, my lord, I should have put in more specific terms - I know you're mind cannot cope with the simple, wise lord - and I should have said 'an original synthesis of ideas'. Please, spare me from the workers milita, oh great wise lord.

And precisely what, pray tell, is the rubric that you would use for determining 'originality'? All knowledge is built upon other knowledge, borne of radical recombinance of variant vibrant data flows; it is an intrinsically collective enterprise that cannot possibly be congealed into individual attributions of authorship.

Note also that you have entirely ignored the question that I asked you in my first post, if you actually intend on having a discussion it would probably be prudent to, oh I don't know--to maybe reply to a question instead of ignoring it? Though as I'm reading the rest of your reply I see that you haven't answered anything else either, heh.

Here, I'll do you a kindness and paste it again so you don't forget:



perhaps an original book should be considered as the personal private property of the author
1. Why?

For the moment allowing that an 'original book' could exist--a notion which I find doubtful, but which is only tangential to this particular statement so I'll overlook it for now--why then should this "original book" be considered the personal property of the author? Why shouldn't it be considered the collective property of the entire cosmos?



why then should this "original book" be considered the personal property of the author? Why shouldn't it be considered the collective property of the entire cosmos?
Tell me, what would the entire cosmos want with a book? But that is tangential to your question - I shall overlook it.... for now.

I cannot pretend to speak for the intentions of an entire cosmos, but perhaps...to eat it, drink it, kiss it, fuck it, read it, lick it, snort it, burn it?


I suppose you're one of those people who think of wikipedia as a definitve authority on any given subject?

...the fuck? Please do paste the exact portion of my post that led you to this supposition. Otherwise, I guess I'll just assume that you are once again resorting to non-sequitors and reply in kind: I suppose you're one of those people who thinks Venetian blinds are the definitive types of window coverings? Well, they're not!


It's not, and authors are recognised as authors for good reasons. The least of which is that it stops idiot teenagers writing articles about Marxist economic theories which are misleading and poorly written, and then having them considered 'authority', when they are absolute rubbish. The second might be to stop idiot teenagers spouting lines from reputable authors and pretending that they came up with them when they fail to make reference to those authors...

How, pray tell, does X being recognised as an author of Y stop 'idiot teenager' Z from writing articles about Marxist economic theories which are misleading and poorly written and then having them considered 'authority', when they are absolute rubbish? I'm not following this at all.

As for 'the second', why would you want to stop people propagating certain information simply because they did not provide a particular attribution? To restrict knowledge flows unless a proper access key of authorship accompanies them seems quite odd indeed. You seem to not be interested in data dissemination at all, merely in setting up sanctioned data flows, and thus partaking in information enclosure; which is again, an entirely authoritarian attribution. Unbridled flow of data contributes to the collective data pool; regulation serves to stifle it. Exactly which part of this are you having a hard time grasping?



You seem to have magically glossed over the initial problem of how can the contributions be susceptible to theft in the first place, and just started talking about protecting them from 'theft', what the fuck? So let me formally ask you:

2. How, pray tell, can the 'original contributions' be rendered susceptible to theft?
My bad. Original contributions = original synthesis of ideas. Theft = not when some hoe steals my book - which they couldn't if I was giving it away freeeeeee, but when they blatently rip it off, use blocks of text without reference, generally pretend its their idea when its not. It's like ... you stole my brainzz. Yeah. Fuck, I shouldnt have to explain myself like this. But, hey, if you're going to go on and say 'but, you cant, like, owwwn stuff .. maaaaan' ... I will never be able to explain myself you.

Here's a handy graphic that might prove helpful for you, since you seem confused about what constitutes theft:


http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9679/27311d2d7c84e8f3e3f5036.jpg

If it's still not clear, let's put this into words with regard to your citation example: A writes a block of text B and puts it into C. Z then pastes a copy of B into Y, sans attribution to A. Now, assuming that L number of people read B in C but wouldn’t have likely read it in Y, and M number of people read B in Y but wouldn’t have likely read it in C, the total number of people (L+M) who are now familiar with the ideas expressed in B is greater than the amount of people who just would have read B in C. So the net result of this 'plagiarism' is that more people are now familiar with B, irrespective of whether or not they know that it was A and not Z who 'originally' wrote these particular words. In other words, the net result of data propagation, irrespective of which author is attributed to it--in other words, the act of plagiarism--is a wider knowledge pool, because it is the text--the information--and not the author, that matters.

If you look at our handy graphic, you see how there's more stars on the diagram on the right-hand side? That stands for a wider reach of data, due to 'piracy' or 'plagiarism', as opposed to propertarian egoizing which serves to constrict data flow. But then again, this was already explained in that CAE text I linked you to, and which you have stated that you have read and agreed with, so I am a bit confused as to why this is then still an issue for you.



And finally then,

3. Why is all of this then seen by you as 'appropriate'? You seem to have tossed in a good deal of isolated terms (which are themselves questionable) like 'original contributions', 'author', 'theft', and then strung them together using words like 'appropriate' or 'should be considered'...but with no actual justification for this stream of non-sequiturs.
Huh? You seem to want to question words alot ... it's like you think 'authors' don't exist, and 'theft' is impossible because 'you can't like, owwwwwn stuff, maaaan.' Justify yourself, man! Should I have used formal logic, rather than an unjustified stream of non-sequiters linking questionable words like author, theft and original contribution?

You see, I--unlike you--actually did explain my reasoning in the paragraph you apparently read as "dribble about creative commons, it being impossible to owwwn stufff maaaaan, and other things", mayhap you should try rereading it? Note, that you have also once again failed to actually answer the question that I asked you, which seemingly signifies your utter inability to fully explain, let alone defend, your positions.



dribble about creative commons, it being impossible to owwwn stufff maaaaan, and other things.
Why don't you post as a guest then? Stop privatising stuff, man... Stop reaping the benefits of the inteerrrr-webb.

lol, so you apparently got tired of quoting me while not responding to anything I inquired about, and are you now responding to your own made up quotes, being incapable of responding to mine?

Well, aside from the inconvenient little technicality that if you click the 'Reply' button, and you are not logged in, you are taken to a login page, thus seemingly preempting guest posting (I mean, assuming that you are talking about this site, since you likely have no idea as to whether or not I actually guest posts on venues that do have guest posting enabled), I'm also not entirely sure what your point about guest posting was in general. I mean, I'm assuming here that you did read the part of my earlier post where I explained what practical use the author function could have?

And what exactly am I privatising? Recall, please, that I'm not the one who believes in the myth of intellectual property, that would be you (http://www.revleft.com/vb/crime-after-revolution-t108451/index.html?p=1440687#post1440687); a position that is apparently incapable of standing up to close scrutiny, if your lack of responses to any of the questions I asked you is any marker to go by.

And finally, what the fuck does your comment for me to 'stop reaping the benefits of the inteerrrr-webb' have to do with anything? Are you yet again, apparently being incapable of responding to questions that challenge your propertarian perceptions, resorting to random non-sequiturs?



On the topic of plagiarism in general, I'd suggest reading Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality, and Electronic Cultural Production (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/ted5.pdf) to gain a different perspective of 'plagiarism' than the authoritarian one you seem to be espousing, since I was actually thinking that I was looking at WIPO (http://www.wipo.int/) propaganda when reading your posts on the topic of IP laws.
You're right, I was an authoritarian. Then I read this literature and converted. Please spare me from the firing squad when the revolution comes.

In assuming good faith, and in keeping with your failure to actually respond to any of my questions, I'm going to take this concession of yours to heart; but hey, thanks for playing ;).

[Vincent]

DiZZie:

I'm about to bow out of this conversation. I'll tell you why: You care more about it than I do, your posts seem to show that you have a lot more time on your hands for discussing this than I do, and I have realized that this 'discussion' with you and apathy maybe has become an aside to the thread topic. So, as a disclaimer, and so you don't get all flustered when I don't answer your questions, I won't be answering your questions, really.

The mention of intellectual property was made in the context of a discussion about what crimes might exist in an anarchist society. I conceded that property crime really makes no sense in a property-less society, but I also said - and still maintain - that crimes like negligence, assault, discrimination, bodily harm, and murder would probably continue. The reason I pointed out intellectual property was because I have the intuition that intellectual property is rather different from the kind of property that people won't own in an anarchist society.

I might have confused the issue by using the term 'intellectual property', though. What I am more interested in is recognizance of authorship. This does not mean the monopoly of the author over the distribution and benefits of his or her 'creations of the mind'. This means that the author is simply recognised. No copyright symbol, or any such protection. Just a name.

Why? A name often provides the reader with an assurance of the quality of the work - I would trust a work on animal rights by 'Peter Singer' than one by '[email protected]'. It allows person A to know where person B got his/her information in a discussion or debate. It allows person A to point out a particular view on any given topic - author B's view - without needing to explain the view in its entirety. It's a useful way of organising information. The point about Guest posting was that being able ot attribute a name to a piece of information enables me and othres to gauge the reliability and underpinning assumptions of that information - having an avatar and name doesn't neccessarily mean I wish to reap the benefits and monopolise my contributions to the forum.

wikipedia is a good example of what happens when information is freely distributed and modified anonymously - many articles are nonsense and contain false and misleading information. But, even then, a good article on wikipedia generally contains a list of references to authors, and books, and other works. Why does this make it a good article? Well, at least the reader knows the article hasn't been pulled out of the authors arse completley - it was made in the context of a discussion on the given subject, and we know where the author is 'coming from'.

I have nothing against the freedom to distribute and modify works, and I am against restrictive copyright laws and such. I love freely available information in when it is reliable.

[JohnnyC]

Since there would be no private property, and most things would be easily affordable, I think it's likely to say that only type of crimes would be those of passion or insanity.In that cases, society would probably try to rehabilitate prisoners.
BTW, No state doesn't mean no laws.Only difference is that those laws would be directly made by society those laws affect instead of bourgeois and their politicians, and that militia, unlike police, would be recallable and accountable to people they protect.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not, and authors are recognised as authors for good reasons. The least of which is that it stops idiot teenagers writing articles about Marxist economic theories which are misleading and poorly written, and then having them considered 'authority', when they are absolute rubbish. The second might be to stop idiot teenagers spouting lines from reputable authors and pretending that they came up with them when they fail to make reference to those authors...
Please don't discriminate against teenagers. 'Twilight' was not written by a teenager, Jack London was not a teenager during his days as an author (but plagiarised regularly), and whoever the fuck wrote my high school history textbook was not a teenager.

[Vincent]

Please don't discriminate against teenagers. 'Twilight' was not written by a teenager, Jack London was not a teenager during his days as an author (but plagiarised regularly), and whoever the fuck wrote my high school history textbook was not a teenager.

I shouldn't have placed the blame for shit books squarely on teenagers, you're right! But, they do provide a useful example of shit writing.