Punishment in anarchism?

[RiseUp]

Ok, first off, I apologize if this is a dumb question. This is something that I've been wondering about for quite some time, it being one of the few questions pertaining to anarchism that I am unable to answer.

In an anarchist society, what happens to those who murder, rape, or commit other heinous crimes along those lines? I mean, I see those as horrible crimes that should be punished, but wouldn't this be forcing one's authority upon another? People can't go around doing this, and I have yet to be convinced that there would be "perfect harmony" or an absense of murder. Am I completely missing something here? Please help.

[violencia.Proletariat]

well, if someone murders someone if it is not self defense/accident, then something has to be done. redstar has a good idea about punishment in communism i agree with, ask him.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:13 AM
I apologize if this is a dumb question.
Do not hesitate to ask any questions, whether you think it is dumb or not :che:

[anomaly]

Punishment would not be forcing one's authority upon another if this 'one' happens to be the entire commune! Anarchism is no rulers, not no rules. The difference is how these rules are made. They will always be made collectively by the people, and, likewise will be enforced by the people. If someone disobeys the rules, they must be punished, obviously. The people will decide the punishment. Justice becomes very simple this way.

[STABD]

what stops the peopel from being lazy and choosing a few peopel to make decisions like that without needing the comunes full partisipation, and what stops this small act of passing the burden from becoming a ruling athority?

[redvanguard]

"Nasty, Brutish and Short" rings a bell..... surely the will of the majority exerting there will can be unjust or tyranical. Surely any action that infringes the libertys of others ought to be punished. simple revenge is no deterent, for one it is unjust, you need fair trial to perform justice. otherwise you get 'tit for tat' reprisals that only exasibate the problem. Within the state of nature a stateless society i can see no institution to enforce this rule, relying on the will of the majority to always be just is wrong. justice ought to act in the name of justice, what balance against the tyrany of the majority can protect the liberty of the individual? this is probibly badly worded so sorry in advance, but for me i always think out anarchist comrades ought to read alittle more Hobbes and Locke.

[anomaly]

If the people chose to revolutionize and create communism, why would they themsleves then decide to do the exact thing that made them rebel, that is, create hierarchy?

Using small groups could be done, also. These small groups could simply be randomly slected so that the entire commune doesn't need to stop for one case. If this small, randomly selected group becomes a ruling authority beyond its designated case, then won't that be breaking a rule (likely)? And then these jurors would become criminals! Honestly, would the rest of the people really allow a randomly selected group to outwit them and take control??

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:15 AM
"Nasty, Brutish and Short" rings a bell..... surely the will of the majority exerting there will can be unjust or tyranical. Surely any action that infringes the libertys of others ought to be punished. simple revenge is no deterent, for one it is unjust, you need fair trial to perform justice. otherwise you get 'tit for tat' reprisals that only exasibate the problem. Within the state of nature a stateless society i can see no institution to enforce this rule, relying on the will of the majority to always be just is wrong. justice ought to act in the name of justice, what balance against the tyrany of the majority can protect the liberty of the individual? this is probibly badly worded so sorry in advance, but for me i always think out anarchist comrades ought to read alittle more Hobbes and Locke.
If the public knows not what justice is, then who do you think does know what 'true' justice is? This seems to inevitably lead to an elitist mentality-'only he can decide justice'. And does the individual who murders deserve liberty at all? Cannot the public, or, as I suggested, a randomly selected jury, realize that the individual committed a crime? You give far too much power to the individual, comrade.

Also, I can't help noticing that this post seems decidedly anti-communist...am I correct?

[STABD]

ya if there the same peopel who reelected Bush

[anomaly]

Haha^^

I don't think we'll be seeing any rednecks waving the red flag anytime soon, comrade.

Seriously, though, if the people's level of ignorance is still at this level, then a revolution could not have taken place.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Something you've got to remember is that anarchism/communism, if successfully implemented, would remove the route causes of what we now understand as crime.
Without poverty there would be little need to steal. With the breakdown of sexual taboos people would be less sexualy represed so rape would be uncommon, and, as the two most common motives for murder are propably sex and money, hopefully people will not feel the need to kill each other. Also, for communism to work there would need to be a massive level of cooperation and community spirit, so people would be unlikely to undermine this by harming their comrades.
The only crimes I see being an issue would be those from the mentally deficient, who should obviously be treat accordingly, and perhaps, the occasional crime of passion, as love is something we're unlikely to be able to collectivise, in such occassions the judgement of the commune should come into effect, distributing justice based solely on the crime in question. Obviously, we're occasionally going to get the occassional 'bad' person, though hopefully such instances would be rare. In such circumstances it should again be the desicion of the commune, but should be more severe than in the crimes of passion.

[monkeydust]

I don't think that we can expect crime to diminish significantly, or to extirpate all the "root causes" of crime. We might be able to do this, sure; but we should "expect" it to happen, we'll always have to think ahead should it not be the case.

In terms of punishment for crimes, it's a difficult issue, and I expect much will be worked out there and then on the basis of practicality.

However it has to be said that there is nothing incompatible with anarchism and the imposition of punishment necessarily, provided the "rules" are well-known are are set up by collective, decentralized agreement.

Another point is that "crimes" in anarchism will only involve what encompasses the public sphere, or actions between people. There won't be any crimes that involve you doing something to yourself - taking drugs, driving without a seatbelt and even committing suicide could not be made illegal.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:45 AM
I don't think we'll be seeing any rednecks waving the red flag anytime soon, comrade.

Well thats a shame because most rednecks are working class proletariat.

[Donnie]

"Nasty, Brutish and Short" rings a bell..... surely the will of the majority exerting there will can be unjust or tyranical. Surely any action that infringes the libertys of others ought to be punished. simple revenge is no deterent, for one it is unjust, you need fair trial to perform justice. otherwise you get 'tit for tat' reprisals that only exasibate the problem. Within the state of nature a stateless society i can see no institution to enforce this rule, relying on the will of the majority to always be just is wrong. justice ought to act in the name of justice, what balance against the tyrany of the majority can protect the liberty of the individual? this is probibly badly worded so sorry in advance, but for me i always think out anarchist comrades ought to read alittle more Hobbes and Locke
I've read Locke and Hobbs theory on the “Social Contract”. But let me ask you this if Hobbs and Locke say that human nature is "nasty, brutish and short"; well then what’s stopping the people in government from being “nasty, brutish and short”? What stops the dictator or prime mister from being corrupted after all he is human?


surely the will of the majority exerting there will can be unjust or tyranical.
Just like a state then, a small minority of people exerting unjust authority among the population?

Most of the crimes in today’s society occur due to the inequality in wealth and power. Rape is a dominance things it's psychological. Normally the rapist who conducts the rape has at some point or is bossed around in his life and so the individual try's to reclaim his dominance through rape.
Also murder? The reason why many people murder in today’s society is because they cannot control their stress levels; as we are humans we are not made to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week are body cannot take that strain that’s why we feel stressed. Now for example if an individual works 8 hours a day 5 days a week you can bet all you're money that, that individuals stress levels will be high! Now it will only take something small like a family problem for that individual to snap and end up hurting someone.
Now I'm not saying that there is not going to be murder in an anarchist/communist society because there probably will be but it will certainly go down due to the fact that the population will not be working for very long because they will not be slaving away for the profit of a few. Obviously in an anarchist/communist society there are going to be the off mishaps due to drink etc. But punishment will be decided collectively by the community.

[Bannockburn]

I've read Locke and Hobbs theory on the “Social Contract”. But let me ask you this if Hobbs and Locke say that human nature is "nasty, brutish and short"; well then what’s stopping the people in government from being “nasty, brutish and short”? What stops the dictator or prime mister from being corrupted after all he is human?

Real fast answers to these questions

1) Hobbes doesn't claim that human nature is short, nasty, brutish, but the stateof nature is.
2) Locke doesn't claim that. In fact, for Locke the state of nature is a pretty nice place. However for Locke we go into civil society for the protection of property whereas Hobbes we do it to leave the state of nature because of its horrible condition
3) For Hobbes, government can be nasty if these wish. In fact, rulers never leave the state of nature, and thus "above" the contract. Locke, however has the "laws of nature" to dicatate that governments are not above the law. That since "no man can give more" authority than he "already has" and men are bound by natural laws, by implication, so are governments.

[OleMarxco]

A very tricky issue - Indeed. Well, let's just say, if you fuck anything up.....
We'll fuck you up. Hah, heh - Simple mob-rule! Riight...not exactly what it's all about, so stop patronisin' us...uh...stereotypizin'...whatever. Anyways, if everyone start's participatin' in the "legal"-stuff and it's not limited to lawyer's and judge's, etc., it will truly be a "rule of the majority", atleast where the mayority CAN...but I don't know how the result's will be off that, that'll be more tolerant or less. If we'll re-use public floggin's with guillotines, or look totally trough it? Just exile 'em? Or just decide to take somethin' from them, muahahahah. Well, it's totally up to "us" then, or atleast, the lott'ra us Q ;)

[Donnie]

1) Hobbes doesn't claim that human nature is short, nasty, brutish, but the stateof nature is.
You are correct on this one, In Thomas Hobbs book Leviathan he says a society without a state would be a "state of nature" and human life would be (and I quote from Leviathan) "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".


2) Locke doesn't claim that. In fact, for Locke the state of nature is a pretty nice place. However for Locke we go into civil society for the protection of property whereas Hobbes we do it to leave the state of nature because of its horrible condition
Actually Locke agreed with Hobbs that humans were self seeking and egotistical because Locke was a Classical Liberal. Both Hobbs and Locke set about creating the "social contract" theory in which the population sacrifices a part of their Liberty to the state to protect their freedom- a social contract between the individual and the state. Both Locke and Hobbs believe the state to be a necessary evil.

[enigma2517]

Take a look at...

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1121179164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Seeker]

Stateless != Law of the Jungle. The State gets redefined.

The only "tyrrany" Hobbs, Loke and the rest of them feared was the one that would take away their trust fund and force them to live like the unwashed masses.

[Bannockburn]

Actually Locke agreed with Hobbs that humans were self seeking and egotistical because Locke was a Classical Liberal. Both Hobbs and Locke set about creating the "social contract" theory in which the population sacrifices a part of their Liberty to the state to protect their freedom- a social contract between the individual and the state. Both Locke and Hobbs believe the state to be a necessary evil.

I'm not really sure where that fits in anywhere? We are not discussing man's essence, rather the condition they find themselves in. Locke and Hobbes do not agree of the condition they find themselves in, ie. The state of nature.

Also, your making a lot of mistakes with your generalizations. Yes, Hobbes' contract gives up a certain amount of their liberty for protection. However, the State never makes such a contract, and as a result the only contract is between two or more individuals among the community. However, the State's condition is still within the state of nature. So, its not between the individual and the State, rather between individuals with the protection of the excluded absolute State.

Also. Again, yes Locke gives up a certain mount of their liberties as well. However, its not to leave the state of nature because of the conditions which arise from it. Rather its for the protection of property. That is the State's primary role. Moreover, unlike Hobbes' who excludes the absolute State, Locke's State is under the law of nature known to us by reason from God. Thus, unlike Hobbes who's State is absolute, Locke's state is relative to certain immutable laws known to us by reason, given by God.

[Patchy]

Vigilante Justice is the first idea that comes to my young mind.

That man just raped my wifes cousin. It's time to teach him a lesson.

[BitchBrew]

One way that comes to my mind is that there could be a "peoples militia" manifested in a collective of by the public chosen people. If smoebody for instance murders another person for one or the other reason, the militia can "arest" the suspect. Then there will be a trial where the suspect has one prosicuter and oned defender. The "judge" won't be one person, but the hole community of the nearby living people. if the person is found gilty he can be put away in a prison like institution (also run by a collective of people ofcource) where he can be held away from sociatey but in the same time gettin medical treatment and training for his anitsocial behaviour.

But i don't know, perhaps this cinde of way is to authoritarian. And perhaps the "militia" can grow into being an opressing power-institution.

[Warren Peace]

Well thats a shame because most rednecks are working class proletariat.

Hahahahahahah! :lol:

Dude...

I live in Kansas City, there aren't many rednecks here, but trust me I've been around the state and Kansas is the redneck capital of the world. Most of these people are brainwashed nationalists, Christian fundementalists, Republican imperialists, racists, and homophobes.

[Le People]

Where I live, it's eithier rednecks or holy rollers, or slightly normal people. Anarchists believe in laws, and laws need excution, so I believe that they have no quams with a small, voluntiar police force, and a public vote on wheter some one is guilty of murder, and goat rape.

[More Fire for the People]

I'm not an anarchist, but seeing as anarchist and communist desire the same society but disagree on the methodolgy I guess I can try to answer.

If someone commits an act of violence against an individual or group, this person would be put on trial by the people of Commune, people would volunteer to represent the plantiff and the defendant and the people would decide the fate of the criminal -- without the centralized powers of a pompous judge.

Oh, and you want to talk about rednecks? I live in Arkansas.

[Stokey]

I as an anarchist would not oppose a people's milita to help protext people but they would have to be constantly changing and if they turn out to be corrupt/rubbish then they could be deposed and a new militia chosen.

The past statements about the community acting as the judge would be the best way.

[poisongirl]

ok help me out here I'm really undecided about my political views right now and I think Anarchy might actually work but as for crime , wouldn't each individual just throw the responsibility on other individual and if this goes on then the crime would go unpunished? I mean poeple tend to do that... everyone will think someone else will take care of this and let someone else do it so it's never done :s