Question for Anarchist

[j.guevara]

Where do rapists, pedophiles, murderers, drug dealers, and other degenerates fit in your utopian world, i.e. how are they punished or dealt with. Without a government to enforce law how do these people not run wild? I'm guessing the decision and task is left up to the community in danger instead of an authoritarian enforcement agency. How would this not generate into vigilante style executions? How does this better society to not have any cops? I don't say this in an attempt to shoot holes in your philosophy im just curious.

[Edelweiss]

Almost all violent crime is actually caused by poverty and inequality created by existing law. A small residual of violent crime might persist, but efforts to handle it by legal channels are futile. Why? Because punishment has no effect on crime, especially such crimes of passion as would survive the abolition of private property. Moreover, criminals should not be judged wicked, but rather treated as we now treat the sick and disadvantaged.

Most left-anarchists probably hold to a mix of Kropotkin's fairly distinct positions on law and crime. Existing law should be replaced by sensible and communitarian customs; and the critic of anarchism underestimates the extent to which existing crime is in fact a product of the legal system's perpetuation of inequality and poverty. And since punishment is not an effective deterrent, and criminals are not ultimately responsible for their misdeeds, a strictly enforced legal code may be undesirable anyway.

Anarchist Theory FAQ (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part9)

[AC-Socialist]

Well as much as id like to put in as much effort to this post as Malte has [/sarcasm] i have to work tommorow so heres it in essence

Proles take power -> dictatorship of proletariat -> through abolishment of the corperate culture, capital value and evolution greed and lust is diminished -> prole dictatorship disbands -> Social Anarchy is created

So with the abolishment of greed and the supposed purification of the human mind there would be no need for said justice system. And until then the dictatorship of the proletariat would ensure law and order would be achieved.

whoa, well thats right down to the most simplistic skeleton, please question away.

[AC-Socialist]

ohh yeah, and that shows us that total libertarianism would prove disasterous as greed would run rampant, people could break laws and molest 10 year old girls oh and then there would be one big monoploy controlling everything and no one could do anything about it because the 'state', before relinquishing all their power, thought that there was no need for a constitution. Whereas under Socialist-Anarchy there would be one well an 'etched code of moral justice' inherent of the socialistic nature they would all live with.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Well, in an anarchist society poverty-related crimes won't exist.
Of course insane and passional crimes will keep happening ( I doubt however there will be many because of how the population will be).
What do we do to them? Well, sometimes we can try to rehabilitate them, and we should isolate them from the rest of society. On some crimes social pressure can be enough to "punish" the criminal.
But about the hardest cases, we will do everything to avoid having to imprison them in some way. I believe the society should be the jury in every case and limit force as much as possible. And put rehabilitation over punishment.
Note that crimes still happen in places like yanquiland where they spend more in the military and police than in health and education. And death penalty doesn't stop crimes.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 25 2004, 03:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 25 2004, 03:38 AM) Well, in an anarchist society poverty-related crimes won&#39;t exist. [/b]
Of course because everyone will be rich.

Nobody will ever want more or need more, because people will willingly share with each other.


Here is where your system fails.



"John [email protected] Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
I will not live my life for any other man, nor ask any man to live for me

Guess what? Your system wont work because myself and other people who work for themselves wont go along with your plan. If you want to steal what I earn, you can do it over our dead bodies.

[RedCeltic]

If you want to steal what I earn, you can do it over our dead bodies.

And yet, it&#39;s somehow ok for the worker to only get a small fraction (wages) of what his/her labor has earned ? Interesting.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:50 AM

If you want to steal what I earn, you can do it over our dead bodies.

And yet, it&#39;s somehow ok for the worker to only get a small fraction (wages) of what his/her labor has earned ? Interesting.
What has their labor earned?


What is a factory worker&#39;s excellence? He has none- his job can be done by many others.

What is a CEO&#39;s excellence? He runs a large company, and allows the people below him to earn money. His job is many orders of magnitude more difficult than the factory worker, and his job requires more skill.


Tell me which is harder a more rare talent, and more useful- Putting bolts into a widget, or organizing people at economic risk to yourself to create these widgets?

[jaredong]

But how does the currenty system work anyway?

Currently, you do a crime, you get punished, and therefore... supposedly.... this is suppose to detter people from commiting the crime in the first place.

This is flawed on several levels.

1) The murders, pedophiles, and such. Do you believe that they are entirely sane people? Even with the current system where the punishment is imprisonment or death, there are still so many acts of crime anyway. What does that mean? that even if you increase the punishment, if you`re mentally *not there* you dont really understand the consequences anyway, so you`ll commit the act.

2)Police officers? There is no relation between the number of police officers and amount of crime in area. But, i think if you look at the type of nieghbourhood the place is in, you`ll find a better relation. It is not about the amount of police, its about the type of society. If you`ve got a bunch of unemployed , uneducated people with no welfare or anything, they`re gonna get really hungry. And angry probally at the people who drink coffee latte&#39;s at starbucks at 6 bucks a shot.

3)How does prisons work anyway? You send them in, and surround them with tons of other criminals, and you expect them to come out a changed person? After you come out of prison, distanced from society, alienated and forever scared with the mark of a inmate, how are you going to get a job or a family properly?

I dont know about you. Perhaps a anarchistic society might not be perfect and perhaps it will have some flaws too. But the current system doesnt work. so why not make a change for the better or for worst, as opposed to keeping it the way it is? What have you got to lose?

And what would change probally?

With the millions (literally) saved from keeping prisoners in prison, saved from pointless court cases and other secruity / legal crap, the money could go into a) education b) employment among other things. With more social equality, and less discrimination, there`d be less crime. And how about the mentally ill ones? Healthcare services could help them on rehab as opposed to putting them into a prison.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:32 AM
1) The murders, pedophiles, and such. Do you believe that they are entirely sane people?
Many are completly rational.


If you have no goverment, the only law is vigilante justice.

Thats the kind of justice where people lynch blacks because blacks are evil.

Thats the kind of justice where people kill gays for corrupting the community

Thats the kind of justice where jews are killed because they "killed christ"

[jaredong]

Dont you think there is a a middle ground somewhere? I believe there should be. Between the Government / no Government answer?

I am in no ways supporting that kinds of acts such as lyching and hate crimes. Neither am i saying that this is a absolute answer to it, im just saying that, despite the system that exists right now, there is still crimes taking place, and therefore another system might be nesscary maybe?

Rationallity? Why would they do such things then?Im going to be kinda daft here and generalise it and sae that if it isnt a mental thing (nature) its gonna be societial (nuture). If so, i believe that, if you take away the reasons why people would murder other people in the first place, then things like ahte crimes (lynchings, gay bashing etc) wouldnt take place either.

Another thing, im not even saying there is a total absence of government here. Just because it isnt "this" government, doesnt mean "no" government. There surely is a better way to do things, and if is possible, im all for it.

[Anarchist Freedom]

anarchism has always interested me, but crime is my only fundamental biff with it....





:che:


CGLM&#33; (http://www.cglm.tk)

[John Galt]

1. Rationallity? Why would they do such things then?Im going to be kinda daft here and generalise it and sae that if it isnt a mental thing (nature) its gonna be societial (nuture). If so, i believe that, if you take away the reasons why people would murder other people in the first place, then things like ahte crimes (lynchings, gay bashing etc) wouldnt take place either.


I have no clue why they would do it, but if you ever speak to some of them, they are quite sane. They just lack morals.


2. Dont you think there is a a middle ground somewhere? I believe there should be. Between the Government / no Government answer?

I am in no ways supporting that kinds of acts such as lyching and hate crimes. Neither am i saying that this is a absolute answer to it, im just saying that, despite the system that exists right now, there is still crimes taking place, and therefore another system might be nesscary maybe?



You have 2 choices. Law, or mob justice. There is no other way. Either the law is written down for all to uphold, or it exists only in the minds of the people are are judge, jury, and executioner.

3. Another thing, im not even saying there is a total absence of government here. Just because it isnt "this" government, doesnt mean "no" government. There surely is a better way to do things, and if is possible, im all for it.

The government must have the power of law, or its not the government.

[jaredong]

Mobs justice? How about community / organisations?

Since when is the only punishment of mobs = killing by a executioner? Arent there degree&#39;s on ways of dealing with negative behavior?

The government isnt just about laws. Theres a whole lot of other things than enforcing and carreying out laws that a government does.

Everyone doesnt want murder, death, and crime. John, how then, would you propose a answer to it? I`ve this before, i like to think im a pretty open minded person, and if you have a solution to crime which works, then try to explain it.

I`m saying

1) The current system doesnt work well.
2) my theory : with healthcare to deal with the mentally ill, with social equality and the absnce of oppression, people would be free-er and with less worries about stravation among other things, crimes would be lowered.

Oh, although "mob justice" might be the have such things, since when was "governemtn law" a fair thing either? Wasnt many witch trials done in courtrooms too? And currently, the sysytem goes by "which lawyer can convince the jury better" than who is right and wrong.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 06:25 AM
Everyone doesnt want murder, death, and crime. John, how then, would you propose a answer to it? I`ve this before, i like to think im a pretty open minded person, and if you have a solution to crime which works, then try to explain it.
Mandatory execution of all capital offenders in a timely manner.

Chain gangs in prison- Currently there are people who commit crimes simply to be in jail. The current jail system costs huge amounts of money each year. This would be making them money.

No parole on violent crimes- currently if you get life imprisonment, you are usually out in eight years.



"Oh, although "mob justice" might be the have such things, since when was "governemtn law" a fair thing either? Wasnt many witch trials done in"

That law is not always just, but it is always fair. The point of the law is a code that applies to all people.

[Pete]

John, perhaps this little tidbit will show you why jailings and death penalties need to go. They have been in use for thousands of years, yet still crime exists. They do not deter or stop crime. If they did, it would have happened by now.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 25 2004, 04:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 25 2004, 04:36 AM) Of course because everyone will be rich.

Nobody will ever want more or need more, because people will willingly share with each other.

Here is where your system fails. [/b]
I never said that. In fact the only reason why Anarchism has never been used in a big scale is because people isn&#39;t prepared for it. They still don&#39;t have their consciences ready to understand the system and respect each other. This is because of how they became dependant of the state and because of how individualist people became with your inequal system. However most crimes such as robbery are created by poverty, and you have no argument against this. After all, it is in yankeeland where the rich run to the suburbs while the poor (who lacks education and can&#39;t just "get a job") do anything to get money. At least that&#39;s what yankeeland shows the world. In an equal society people will have to respect the right of others to use things, otherwise they won&#39;t let them have that right. And education will be free, and there will be plans to distribute the population equally, thus reducing the concentration of poor people in one place (until there isn&#39;t any more poor people).



"John [email protected] Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
I will not live my life for any other man, nor ask any man to live for me

Ayn Rand? That ***** wrote FICTION and btw he never contributed with society in any good way, she just ran away to yankeeland and the only thing he did in her life was writing stupid shit. But you quote her like if she was god.


Guess what? Your system wont work because myself and other people who work for themselves wont go along with your plan. If you want to steal what I earn, you can do it over our dead bodies.

Well in fact you can go and work for yourself, however I don&#39;t think the rest of the people will tolerate you. You can get a piece of land and use that to survive and you might sometimes even trade, and nobody will "steal what you earn". And after all, which system steals what 99% of the people earn? CAPITALISM&#33; You are probably rich if you think they will "steal what you earn", because after all in capitalism the bosses steal their workers and then give them their part, even if the employee worked harder and for a longer time than his boss.
Anyway, you will probably run away to a capitalist paradise if Anarchism arrive, or you might be killed by them if necessary.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:31 PM
John, perhaps this little tidbit will show you why jailings and death penalties need to go. They have been in use for thousands of years, yet still crime exists. They do not deter or stop crime. If they did, it would have happened by now.
Jailing as a punishment is and of itself is fairly recent. Usually you were kept in jail until the king/mob decided what to do with you.

Pete- we have barely had law for thousands of years.


My system-
0 repeat capital offenders
0 cost to the people for the jail system
Jail is actually a punishment rather than a resort
Law applies to everyone
Due process of trial

Your system-
Mob lynchings
Vigilante justice
Everyone is judge/jury/executioner

[John Galt]

El Infiltrado-
Are you claiming that Bach, Motzart, Picasso, et al did nothing to contribute to society?



And thank you for admitting that your system requires mob violence to work.

[Osman Ghazi]

Firstly, of course ceo&#39;s don&#39;t deserve what they make you fucking retard. Why should they make &#036;1000000+ for telling people to do things when the people who actually do it make &#036;20000? (if that)

Secondly, who said there would be no laws in an anarchistic society. Your taking the concept of Anarchy to literally. It comes from the Greek &#39;an archos&#39;, or without masters. You would probably still have laws in an anarchistic society, they would just be enforced by the people rather than the police. Also, in Anarchy, you would still have a government, it would just be direct democracy. i.e. People [B]actually rule[B], rather than just choosing who rules them.

PS: I realize that what i just said is part of a distinct brand of anarchy, and these concepts do not represent all anarchist.

[Osman Ghazi]

Thats the kind of justice where people lynch blacks because blacks are evil.

Thats the kind of justice where people kill gays for corrupting the community

Thats the kind of justice where jews are killed because they "killed christ"

What i find so funny about this is that these things were committed under your perfect system and secondly, the people who did these things would support what your saying in this thread.
ah, irony.

[Pete]

Jailing as a punishment is and of itself is fairly recent

The Egyptians used it over 3000 years ago.

Lier.


Pete- we have barely had law for thousands of years.

Hammurabi codified his laws about 3000 years ago, if not more.

Lier.


0 repeat capital offenders
0 cost to the people for the jail system
Jail is actually a punishment rather than a resort
Law applies to everyone
Due process of trial

And what of the people who are wrongly convicted and killed? What about the politicians and big businessmen who seem to be made of teflon?

Sure no repeat offenders, but crime would still exist. You are not solving the problem, you are ignoring it.

Lier.


Your system-
Mob lynchings
Vigilante justice
Everyone is judge/jury/executioner

Pure assumption. The things you talk about existed not in communities where people lived together, but where people had inbreed hateness. That is part of the thing we are trying to work against.

Need I say it again?

Lier.

[John Galt]

I wasnt aware that i was lying on the ground. I think I was just running, and now im sitting.

I think you meant "Liar" as in one who tells untruths.


"The Egyptians used it over 3000 years ago. "

The egyptians had no common law. We are talking about a system of law, vs a system without law.

"Hammurabi codified his laws about 3000 years ago, if not more."

I never said he didnt. But 3000 years isnt many thousands of years.


"And what of the people who are wrongly convicted and killed?"
No system is perfect.


"What about the politicians and big businessmen who seem to be made of teflon?"
Are you saying that politicians and big businessmen dont get convicted of crimes?


"Sure no repeat offenders, but crime would still exist. You are not solving the problem, you are ignoring it."
Wrong. I am stamping it out. How many people will commit crimes when they know that they are looking at a chair with electrodes, and that they arent getting life(out in 8 years)?

"Pure assumption. The things you talk about existed not in communities where people lived together, but where people had inbreed hateness. That is part of the thing we are trying to work against."

Fine. Tell me how the law(if there is any) will be enforced when there are no police, and no court system. Your system depends on Batman.


Osman-
"What i find so funny about this is that these things were committed under your perfect system and secondly, the people who did these things would support what your saying in this thread."

Please tell me which part of the US penal code allows mob violence and lynching. And i think im debating "no government" anarchy with Pete.

if you want direct democracy, why dont you just call it that.



If anyone wants to start another thread, we can debate if anarchy can be sustained.

[Osman Ghazi]

The egyptians had no common law. We are talking about a system of law, vs a system without law.

We aren&#39;t alking about a system without law at all. And what do you mean the egyptians don&#39;t have common law. Of course they don&#39;t &#39;common law&#39; was invented by the English. And thusly only England and the nations it spawned have &#39;common law&#39;. France and Germany don&#39;t have common law. So what?


I never said he didnt. But 3000 years isnt many thousands of years.


I think 3000 years is more than enough to see if a system works or not.


No system is perfect.


I&#39;m so fucking sick opf that being the excuse to do nothing. How about a system where i decide who is guilty and who is innocent? I mean sure it isn&#39;t fair but hey, no system is perfect. What were trying to do is make a system that is good not perfect.


Are you saying that politicians and big businessmen dont get convicted of crimes?

Actually I think that was exactly what he was saying.


Wrong. I am stamping it out. How many people will commit crimes when they know that they are looking at a chair with electrodes, and that they arent getting life(out in 8 years)?

People have always been killed for even the most minor of crimes. And the chair hasn&#39;t seemed to stop crime yet. Many states still have the death penelty, and lo and behold, people still commit crimes. Whoda thunk it?


Fine. Tell me how the law(if there is any) will be enforced when there are no police, and no court system. Your system depends on Batman.


You don&#39;t know the first thing about an anarchistic law system.


Please tell me which part of the US penal code allows mob violence and lynching.

You fucking retard. All the examples you gave of mob violence happened in the U&#036;. You must be fucking stupid if you didn&#39;t get that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that no one has ever been lynched in the U&#036;?

Direct democracy is a form of anarchy.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2004, 05:49 PM

The egyptians had no common law. We are talking about a system of law, vs a system without law.

We aren&#39;t alking about a system without law at all. And what do you mean the egyptians don&#39;t have common law. Of course they don&#39;t &#39;common law&#39; was invented by the English. And thusly only England and the nations it spawned have &#39;common law&#39;. France and Germany don&#39;t have common law. So what?
By common law, I mean law common to all the people. Not one law for nobles, and another for the peasents.

"I think 3000 years is more than enough to see if a system works or not."
And what is wrong with the current system


"I&#39;m so fucking sick opf that being the excuse to do nothing. How about a system where i decide who is guilty and who is innocent? I mean sure it isn&#39;t fair but hey, no system is perfect. What were trying to do is make a system that is good not perfect."
Thats why law is needed. Law is fair.

"Actually I think that was exactly what he was saying."
Then he would be wrong.

"People have always been killed for even the most minor of crimes. And the chair hasn&#39;t seemed to stop crime yet. Many states still have the death penelty, and lo and behold, people still commit crimes. Whoda thunk it?"
How often is the death penalty actually used instead of life (parole in 8)?

"You don&#39;t know the first thing about an anarchistic law system. "
Please, enlighten me.


"You fucking retard. All the examples you gave of mob violence happened in the U&#036;. You must be fucking stupid if you didn&#39;t get that. Are you honestly trying to tell me that no one has ever been lynched in the U&#036;?"

Im honestly trying to tell you that lynching is against the law in the US, but would BE the law in your system.


"Direct democracy is a form of anarchy."

an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[Osman Ghazi]

And what is wrong with the current system
Umm... the fact that there is still crime, i think.


Thats why law is needed. Law is fair.
Law isn&#39;t fair because if im not rich, i cant afford a good lawyer. Therefore the rich have a better chance of getting of the hook than the poor. Therefore, no the current law is not fair.


Then he would be wrong.


Actually, hes right. How many celebrities, politicians and rich businessmen are sitting in jail right now? Did the managers of Enron go to jail?


How often is the death penalty actually used instead of life (parole in 8)?


Firstly, your taking the this parole in 8 years thing way out of context. First, it is the earliest you can be reveiwed for parole. It is quite possible to get life without parole. Secondly, you are only reveiwed to see if you are capable to be let into society. It is extremely rare that you would be let out that soon for murder. I don&#39;t have exact statistics on me but i would guess that at the very most, 5% get out that early.


Please, enlighten me.

I wish that i could but quite frankly, there isn&#39;t a set definition. Anarchy has never existed so it can hardly have a set system of rules.


Im honestly trying to tell you that lynching is against the law in the US, but would BE the law in your system.

If you had actually read this thread you would realize that almost everyone here is opposed to the death penalty, so i doubt very highly that it would be the law in our system.

Lastly, i think that this thread would benefit from some more specific examples. So let us say that a man has caught his wife in bed with another man and killed him and her.
1)How would he be brought to justice/ who would bring him?
2)How would innocence/guilt be established?
3)How would he be punished for his crime?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2004, 06:27 PM


Just because this forum is opposed to it, does not mean the rest of the people are opposed to it. You think the texans wouldnt be enforcing some mob justice?

"Lastly, i think that this thread would benefit from some more specific examples. So let us say that a man has caught his wife in bed with another man and killed him and her.
1)How would he be brought to justice/ who would bring him?
2)How would innocence/guilt be established?
3)How would he be punished for his crime?"

In the current system
1) Police arrest him, bring him to trial
2) By a jury of his peers, having reaching a conclusion of either innocence, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
3) Depends on the state

In your System
1) Either nobody, or a mob
2) By whichever leader was leading the mob
3) Whatever the leader decides

"Anarchy has never existed so it can hardly have a set system of rules."

What the hell are we debating then?

[j.guevara]

the thing with anarchism is you will never get everyone to embrace an ideal. I think it can only be done in small liberated zones (which would probably be destoyed by pigs). I live in America an our culture teaches us to be assholes. I doubt Americans will ever embrace anarchism or any leftist ideas, this is a very rightest country.

[Saint-Just]

Just because this forum is opposed to it, does not mean the rest of the people are opposed to it. You think the texans wouldnt be enforcing some mob justice?

"Lastly, i think that this thread would benefit from some more specific examples. So let us say that a man has caught his wife in bed with another man and killed him and her.
1)How would he be brought to justice/ who would bring him?
2)How would innocence/guilt be established?
3)How would he be punished for his crime?"

He didn&#39;t need to kill them, the state should have done it.

I would assume that a lot of Anarchists would say that marriage wouldn&#39;t exist and so on. In addition, they may say that everyone would condemn his actions and kill him. I do not think Anarchists would have prisons.

[Osman Ghazi]

"Lastly, i think that this thread would benefit from some more specific examples. So let us say that a man has caught his wife in bed with another man and killed him and her.
1)How would he be brought to justice/ who would bring him?
2)How would innocence/guilt be established?
3)How would he be punished for his crime?"

Galt i didn&#39;t ask this question for your benefit because i dont care what you think. I asked it so that we could develope a real solution to this problem.


What the hell are we debating then?

What we are debating is past and present systems of justice and we are trying to come up with an ideal solution to the pronlem of how do deal with offenders in an anarchist society.

I seriously doubt that police and the mob are the only ways to arrest offenders. However, come to think of it, i dont have any alternative solutions myself. Any suggestions?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 25 2004, 03:09 PM
El Infiltrado-
Are you claiming that Bach, Motzart, Picasso, et al did nothing to contribute to society?
No
but what did Ayn Rand did for society?


And thank you for admitting that your system requires mob violence to work.

When did I say that? The closest thing I said was "or you might be killed by them if necessary", referring to revolutionaries, in a revolution, killing you, IF NECESSARY.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 25 2004, 08:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 25 2004, 08:28 PM)
John [email protected] 25 2004, 03:09 PM
El Infiltrado-
Are you claiming that Bach, Motzart, Picasso, et al did nothing to contribute to society?
No
but what did Ayn Rand did for society?


And thank you for admitting that your system requires mob violence to work.

When did I say that? The closest thing I said was "or you might be killed by them if necessary", referring to revolutionaries, in a revolution, killing you, IF NECESSARY. [/b]
She created works of fiction that explained her philospohy. And they arent bad books either.


Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up for me. I didnt have the time to call my ESP specialist to find out what you meant.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 25 2004, 06:33 PM
"Lastly, i think that this thread would benefit from some more specific examples. So let us say that a man has caught his wife in bed with another man and killed him and her.
1)How would he be brought to justice/ who would bring him?
2)How would innocence/guilt be established?
3)How would he be punished for his crime?"

In the current system
1) Police arrest him, bring him to trial
2) By a jury of his peers, having reaching a conclusion of either innocence, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
3) Depends on the state

In your System
1) Either nobody, or a mob
2) By whichever leader was leading the mob
3) Whatever the leader decides
No

In fact I doubt people will get married in Anarchism.

1) Anarchism is a flexible system, and laws should be decided by the population in the same way now people chose which thief they want in government (just that in anarchism they will be really using their power). A usual idea is the voluntary and democratic workers army.
2) By a jury of course
3) It depends on what the people of that area have previously decided when establishing the new system

[Osman Ghazi]

I think people will still get married. Obviously it wont be an economic and legal institution but i think it will still exist. I certainly wouldn&#39;t propose the abolition of marriage. But we still haven&#39;t figured out who would arrest him. Would there still be police in our society? Perhaps you could have a sort of volunteer police force, like volunteer firemen. They wouldn&#39;t go on patrols, but they could be called on to arrest suspects.

[The Feral Underclass]

What are prispns? first and foremost they are an institution for the ruling class to put people who go against state rules. The majority of people in prison are there for property related theft. Crimes which could have been avoided had society been fair and equal.

The second purpose of a prison is to lock up criminals that are not deemed worthy to walk the streets- Rapists, paedophiles mass murderers etc etc. Locked away and forgotten about.

In an anarchist society property related theft would not exist. Society wuld produce enough for everyone and the nature of a workers revolution would have removed notions of selfishness and greed and therefore the actual idea of commiting property theft would have been replaced by a desire to achieve this society.

The majority of paedophiles are ill and there isnt enough research to determine what makes people do these things to children. The same for people who enjoy killing, there isnt enough research to show why these things happen. Are they medically treatable? no one knows?

What these questions bring up is the right to stop someone from killing or commiting a crime against a child. Authority by nature is a bad thing, it is a form of oppression. Anarchism opposes authority on principle because of this reason and also because it is unnecessary. But when is it unnecessary? Well I believe authority is unnecessary when it can not justify itself. State authority can not justify itself, the authority of capitalism can not justify itself. However, as Chomsky said, some authority can be justified. Stopping your daughter from running infront of a car is justifyable authority. As, I believe is stopping someone from commiting mass murder or raping a child. If someone commits these crimes then it is the respnsability of the community to decide what happens. Maybe there is a national hospital for paedophiles etc to be treated it would be up to the nation or the community to decide democratically.

What anti-anarchists tend to do alot when trying to disfute the theory is bring up questions like "well how can you do this if there&#39;s no authority" "i bet there wont be any prisons" blah blah blah without actually understanding what these concepts represent within the context of capitalism and workers liberation. Authority to force someone into wage slavery is not the same as stopping someone from raping a child. Authority that forces you obey unelected or even elected leaders because they "no better than you" is not the same as protecting a community from a mass murderer. Please do not confuse them you will only misunderstand what anarchism is.