Support NeoGAF

[percephone]

But outside authority IS the root of many such problems. Everyone in this thread seems to ignore the fact that the vast majority of "criminality" is non-violent in nature.

"Between 2001 and 2013, more than half of prisoners serving sentences of more than a year in federal facilities were convicted of drug offenses (table 15 and table 16). On September 30, 2013 (the end of the most recent fiscal year for which federal offense data were available), 98,200 inmates (51% of the federal prison population) were imprisoned for possession, trafficking, or other drug crimes." http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/prisons_and_drugs#sthash.qo2AEm7B.dpuf

How many of those were conviction on plea bargains for a lesser offenses?

 

[Lautaro]

This is more of a fantasy than the list.

How about you travel a bit and see this fantasy for yourself.

 

[wildfire]

"History" is an empty bullshit statement lacking any critical thought whatsoever and you should, quite frankly, be ashamed to use it to justify your non-argument.

<snipped for brevity>.

Yeah we had such communities all over the original 13 states of America as well. This falls apart though as population increases. It's not an easy thing to scale up.

You are both right depending on the time period.

Anyway crime is decreasing in general these past few decades. Even the violent ones.

 

[The Llama]

How many of those were conviction on plea bargains for a lesser offenses?

Realistically, the only charges being bargained are whether it was possession or distribution, and whether a firearm was involved (because holy crap firearms charges have crazy long mandatory minimums).

 

[Poodlestrike]

"History" is an empty bullshit statement lacking any critical thought whatsoever and you should, quite frankly, be ashamed to use it to justify your non-argument. If you actually examine history, you'll see that the vast majority of humanity's time on earth was spent in peaceful, egalitarian groups without official leadership. Based on the way humans naturally are, it's incredibly, blatantly, shockingly obvious that we aren't naturally violent, but cooperative and friendly. Only when the few selfish and fucked up individuals were allowed to accrue power did shit go bad. They used their power to exert force on others, increasing their wealth and making others poor and desperate. That desperation drove people to violence and what would eventually be considered crime. And even that has only ever been a minority of the oppressed and suffering, because people are generally nice. If you remove the structures that keep them oppressed, you can then begin to fix the issues that create crime and violence: poverty.

Poverty is not the natural state of man, and as it is the source of violence in almost all but the mentally ill, neither is selfish violence. This is shown to objectively be true if one simply looks at societies that are like all humans would have once lived. So our entire goal as a society should be to evenly distribute power and constantly work against those select few selfish people from fucking it up for the rest of us. Resigning to anything else is giving up and letting those power hungry people perpetuate the systems of poverty, violence, and crime that they then use to justify their power.

Source? AFAIK, there hasn't been a period in recorded human history not marked by strife and violence. And if we're going further back, we have a) no evidence to support the idea that pre-historical tribes were peaceful, let alone egalitarian and b) quite a bit of evidence demonstrating that were frankly utter bastards, what with wiping out the Neanderthals and all.

Anyway, it's frankly academic. Once you tear down an existing power structure, you cease to have any control over what happens next. You can talk about the natural state of man all you like, but like it or not, those power-hungry bastards are just as human as you are, and just as prevalent as they were way back when. Controlled change is the only way to go about it, and trying to swap to an entirely different system is to court disaster.

 

[jackissocool]

Yeah we had such communities all over the original 13 states of America as well. This falls apart though as population increases. It's not an easy thing to scale up.

You are both right depending on the time period.

Anyway crime is decreasing in general these past few decades. Even the violent ones.

No. Human nature does not shift based on the time period, or it wouldn't be human nature. What matters is that a bunch of people in here are arguing that humans are naturally a bunch of savage animals incapable of cooperation. History has proven this to be incredibly far from the truth. And yes, an egalitarian society will be difficult to maintain in large populations with divisions of labor, but with widespread and an elimination of poverty (not at all impossible, as poverty is a social construct and has not always been), then you will have a materially aware population perfectly capable of self-regulation. Shouts of "Mob rule!' are elitist as hell, but more importantly, they ignore the fact that direct democracy would be implemented in a more educated society.

Source? AFAIK, there hasn't been a period in recorded human history not marked by strife and violence. And if we're going further back, we have a) no evidence to support the idea that pre-historical tribes were peaceful, let alone egalitarian and b) quite a bit of evidence demonstrating that were frankly utter bastards, what with wiping out the Neanderthals and all.

Anyway, it's frankly academic. Once you tear down an existing power structure, you cease to have any control over what happens next. You can talk about the natural state of man all you like, but like it or not, those power-hungry bastards are just as human as you are, and just as prevalent as they were way back when. Controlled change is the only way to go about it, and trying to swap to an entirely different system is to court disaster.

Read the first sentence. Humans were hunter gatherers for 99+% of their existence. Any anthropologist will tell you that. The evidence that pre-historical tribes were peaceful is pretty damn strong.

There is no significant evidence that humans violently wiped out neanderthals. The main proponent of that theory is Jared Diamond, who is a joke in anthropological circles. Almost certainly, it was mostly just being outcompeted by more culturally adaptive humans, who would've only needed a slight competitive edge to quickly overtake them. In fact, what's considered much more likely than genocide is integration and interbreeding.

And what idiot is advocating just elminating one system and hoping for the best? Revolutions are messy business, and they don't always work out, but sudden social change has been achieved by the people many times before, and to act like it hasn't is willful ignorance. And again, you want to give those selfish bastards power instead of keeping it away and giving it to the peaceful majority?

A more educated society that does not exist.

I think that's the sticking point. I'm purely discussing what would happen if we implemented these changes tomorrow, you're dealing with a more long-term hypothetical that I'm not really sure of at this point.

Straw man, because that's not what the author or anyone who supports him is advocating.

 

[Poodlestrike]

No. Human nature does not shift based on the time period, or it wouldn't be human nature. What matters is that a bunch of people in here are arguing that humans are naturally a bunch of savage animals incapable of cooperation. History has proven this to be incredibly far from the truth. And yes, an egalitarian society will be difficult to maintain in large populations with divisions of labor, but with widespread and an elimination of poverty (not at all impossible, as poverty is a social construct and has not always been), then you will have a materially aware population perfectly capable of self-regulation. Shouts of "Mob rule!' are elitist as hell, but more importantly, they ignore the fact that direct democracy would be implemented in a more educated society.

A more educated society that does not exist.

I think that's the sticking point. I'm purely discussing what would happen if we implemented these changes tomorrow, you're dealing with a more long-term hypothetical that I'm not really sure of at this point.

 

[BPoole]

#Hamsterdam

 

[Lautaro]

Humans are not a bunch of savages that will jump to each other throat at the first vaccum of power, yes... but the problem is that you just need a small percentage to be savages for the whole idea to fail.

A small group of violent and ruthless people can oppress and abuse a more numerous group of decent people. Now, the decent people came with solutions for that: a state with laws and a police force to enforce them. This whole debate is just trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

No. Human nature does not shift based on the time period, or it wouldn't be human nature. What matters is that a bunch of people in here are arguing that humans are naturally a bunch of savage animals incapable of cooperation. History has proven this to be incredibly far from the truth. And yes, an egalitarian society will be difficult to maintain in large populations with divisions of labor, but with widespread and an elimination of poverty (not at all impossible, as poverty is a social construct and has not always been), then you will have a materially aware population perfectly capable of self-regulation. Shouts of "Mob rule!' are elitist as hell, but more importantly, they ignore the fact that direct democracy would be implemented in a more educated society.

So how does one fully eliminate poverty?

Once that happens, how does that cause people to be perfectly capable of self-regulation?

 

[RoyaleDuke]

When will Anarchists understand that anarchy won't work? The article reads like it fell out of the ass of some 12th grade anarchist hippie liberal scrub who doesn't really understand how the world works, or society for that matter.

A world without law would be a nightmare worse than the one we already live in, which honestly needs improvement in a lot of areas but getting rid of all cops isn't one of them.

I mean this whole article sounds incredibly fucking stupid except for the fact that we do need to stop demonizing Mental Health in America, and start taking a more proactive approach and steps to actually changing the way we think about Mental Health and the way we treat people with issues.

That would be a great start.

Getting rid of all the police? Nope, that is just really dumb.

 

[Nickle]

Well, I guess it's time to start building that bomb shelter.

 

[Vidal]

Just read co-op free world and I was WHAT??? Do you have no friends?

Well, no cops would be stupid really.

 

[Mr. Tone]

When will Anarchists understand that anarchy won't work? The article reads like it fell out of the ass of some 12th grade anarchist hippie liberal scrub who doesn't really understand how the world works, or society for that matter.

A world without law would be a nightmare worse than the one we already live in, which honestly needs improvement in a lot of areas but getting rid of all cops isn't one of them.

I mean this whole article sounds incredibly fucking stupid except for the fact that we do need to stop demonizing Mental Health in America, and start taking a more proactive approach and steps to actually changing the way we think about Mental Health and the way we treat people with issues.

That would be a great start.

Getting rid of all the police? Nope, that is just really dumb.

I'm not going to say that this article is some kind of revelatory prescription for curing the world's ills, but are people at least able to recognise that society doesn't have to be the way that it is, and it's okay to think about how it could be improved?

 

[jackissocool]

Humans are not a bunch of savages that will jump to each other throat at the first vaccum of power, yes... but the problem is that you just need a small percentage to be savages for the whole idea to fail.

A small group of violent and ruthless people can oppress and abuse a more numerous group of decent people. Now, the decent people came with solutions for that: a state with laws and a police force to enforce them. This whole debate is just trying to reinvent the wheel.

This is such a confusing argument! Shouldn't our goal then be to limit power instead of giving it to those who want it most? The police system attracts violent thugs who want to boss people around. The American government attracts greedy sons of bitches who want to get big fucking presents from their rich friends and make sure they stay rich. Capitalist business structures encourage a small group of enormous dicks to take all the money their employees generate. The system's current state is fucked up by the small group of assholes, and they've got us all convinced that's for the best! What you need is a system that actively works to keep power evenly distributed and democratic. You need a populace that is aware of the threats those selfish individuals pose and understand that they have the power collectively to stop that from happening. Yes, if everyone just sits on their butts and watches some motherfucker take over, it breaks down. But we know better now, so we can adjust things and make sure that doesn't happen. We just need to tear shit down first.

So how does one fully eliminate poverty?

Once that happens, how does that cause people to be perfectly capable of self-regulation?

To eliminate poverty, one needs to examine how poverty began. In hunter-gatherer societies, there was no poverty. Poverty and, more importantly, the entire concept of class originated with the development of agriculture. Suddenly it became valuable to enclose and own land instead of simply living on it. Over thousands of years, this ownership became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Ownership = power. Ownership is limited, and therefore so is power. If power is limited, then those who seek it will also want others to have less - that's how they get more. Once people who want power have more than somebody else, they use it to increase their ownership relative to other people. Those power distinctions grow to create poverty among the powerless. What poverty really is is not poverty of money, but poverty of power and ownership. Therefore, in order to eliminate poverty, ownership (and thus power) must be redistributed to the people as evenly as possible.

As for your second question, people are certainly more capable of self-regulation than they are of regulating others. If you believe people are too shitty to be in charge of themselves, than they're certainly much less capable of being in charge of more than just themselves.

When will Anarchists understand that anarchy won't work? The article reads like it fell out of the ass of some 12th grade anarchist hippie liberal scrub who doesn't really understand how the world works, or society for that matter.

A world without law would be a nightmare worse than the one we already live in, which honestly needs improvement in a lot of areas but getting rid of all cops isn't one of them.

I mean this whole article sounds incredibly fucking stupid except for the fact that we do need to stop demonizing Mental Health in America, and start taking a more proactive approach and steps to actually changing the way we think about Mental Health and the way we treat people with issues.

That would be a great start.

Getting rid of all the police? Nope, that is just really dumb.

Ironically, you have a sub 12th-graders understanding of what anarchism actually is. Anarchism =/= no laws. Anarchism = as little hierarchy as possible. There would very much be law and order, but it would not come from on high.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

How about you travel a bit and see this fantasy for yourself.

Nah. Travel isn't necessary.

I'm already aware of the fact that other countries are much more progressive in terms of policing than the United States of America. The systems they have are to be applauded, and admired. We should strive to have something similar.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the US will never have a policing system in which human rights are respected (especially for ethnic minorities) and non-violence and rehabilitation are the actual goals of our justice system. It'll never happen. My response was more about the US and less about the rest of the world, because other countries have SIGNIFICANTLY better policing.

 

[markot]

That was terrible....

 

[captainraincoat]

Policing is a Dirty Job, But Nobody's Gotta Do It: 6 Ideas for a Cop-Free World

Written by Jose Martin and published by Rolling Stone. Tones of hyperlinks in the source article.

This might get me flamed but i think the elephant in the room is Gun Control
there are way too many guns in america and some of the guns you can get the military wont use...you wont really need an M60 for home defense unless you live in Iraq

you want to change society then you need to stop giving them the tools to kill each other with

 

[RoyaleDuke]

This is such a confusing argument! Shouldn't our goal then be to limit power instead of giving it to those who want it most? The police system attracts violent thugs who want to boss people around. The American government attracts greedy sons of bitches who want to get big fucking presents from their rich friends and make sure they stay rich. Capitalist business structures encourage a small group of enormous dicks to take all the money their employees generate. The system's current state is fucked up by the small group of assholes, and they've got us all convinced that's for the best! What you need is a system that actively works to keep power evenly distributed and democratic. You need a populace that is aware of the threats those selfish individuals pose and understand that they have the power collectively to stop that from happening. Yes, if everyone just sits on their butts and watches some motherfucker take over, it breaks down. But we know better now, so we can adjust things and make sure that doesn't happen. We just need to tear shit down first.


To eliminate poverty, one needs to examine how poverty began. In hunter-gatherer societies, there was no poverty. Poverty and, more importantly, the entire concept of class originated with the development of agriculture. Suddenly it became valuable to enclose and own land instead of simply living on it. Over thousands of years, this ownership became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Ownership = power. Ownership is limited, and therefore so is power. If power is limited, then those who seek it will also want others to have less - that's how they get more. Once people who want power have more than somebody else, they use it to increase their ownership relative to other people. Those power distinctions grow to create poverty among the powerless. What poverty really is is not poverty of money, but poverty of power and ownership. Therefore, in order to eliminate poverty, ownership (and thus power) must be redistributed to the people as evenly as possible.

As for your second question, people are certainly more capable of self-regulation than they are of regulating others. If you believe people are too shitty to be in charge of themselves, than they're certainly much less capable of being in charge of more than just themselves.



Ironically, you have a sub 12th-graders understanding of what anarchism actually is. Anarchism =/= no laws. Anarchism = as little hierarchy as possible. There would very much be law and order, but it would not come from on high.

I'm curious as to where I said that Anarchy is comprised of no laws? To my understanding Anarchism, as a philosophy is the absence of rule in the form of self governed rule, the basic theory behind it coming from many different views. Which from my perspective doesn't sound great if nobody can agree on one thing, or set of ideas.

The idea of a completely free society is a nice thought if everybody held the best interests for each other, but often times human nature gets in the way of that.

Which is why an Anarchism based society won't work, however the state run society we live in isn't exactly working out for our best interests either.

Ideally, it would be a combination of both philosophies perhaps focusing on humanism.

Either way the insult was quite unnecessary.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

To eliminate poverty, one needs to examine how poverty began. In hunter-gatherer societies, there was no poverty. Poverty and, more importantly, the entire concept of class originated with the development of agriculture. Suddenly it became valuable to enclose and own land instead of simply living on it. Over thousands of years, this ownership became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Ownership = power. Ownership is limited, and therefore so is power. If power is limited, then those who seek it will also want others to have less - that's how they get more. Once people who want power have more than somebody else, they use it to increase their ownership relative to other people. Those power distinctions grow to create poverty among the powerless. What poverty really is is not poverty of money, but poverty of power and ownership. Therefore, in order to eliminate poverty, ownership (and thus power) must be redistributed to the people as evenly as possible.

What exactly do you mean by ownership must be redistributed? Do you just mean ownership of land? Like everyone gets an acre of land or something?

 

[TimorousPanda]

Lowering the crime rate by just making nothing a crime is pretty fucking stupid.

My thoughts as well. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Police works just fine in many countries
The problem is culture

 

[jackissocool]

I'm curious as to where I said that Anarchy is comprised of no laws? To my understanding Anarchism, as a philosophy is the absence of rule in the form of self governed rule, the basic theory behind it coming from many different views. Which from my perspective doesn't sound great if nobody can agree on one thing, or set of ideas.

The idea of a completely free society is a nice thought if everybody held the best interests for each other, but often times human nature gets in the way of that.

Which is why an Anarchism based society won't work, however the state run society we live in isn't exactly working out for our best interests either.

Ideally, it would be a combination of both philosophies perhaps focusing on humanism.

Either way the insult was quite unnecessary.

When will Anarchists understand that anarchy won't work?... A world without law would be a nightmare worse than the one we already live in.

Right there is where you said that.

Anarchism doesn't rely on everyone watching out for eachother (although I do believe that would be the case!). It only relies on people not wanting to be fucked over by power-hungy madmen. And what exactly is your middle ground between a state and the abolition of the state? They're not ends of a spectrum, they're distinct opposites.

Also, humanism isn't a political philosophy, but an anti-religious one focused on humans over the supernatural.

And you're right, I'm sorry for the insult. It wasn't nearly as necessary as yours.

What exactly do you mean by ownership must be redistributed? Do you just mean ownership of land? Like everyone gets an acre of land or something?

Something like that would be silly and ineffective. How exactly it manifests itself would vary based on culture and resources, so it's hard to give a single answer - the real world requires a diversity of answers. It's not limited to land, but all of the means of production - land, yes, but also factories, roads, office buildings, mines, etc. So, instead of some board of directors in a sky scraper owning a mine where workers work and the owners get all the coal or whatever, the miners control the way the mine operates. They own it, and in the long term, society would leave behind the profit motive as a primary driving factor (there are many other ways to motivate people - if you believe only greed can, you need to look at the shocking diversity of human economic and cultural systems that have little to no concept of greed), and the resources pulled from the mine would be used for the needs and desires of the people instead of the whims of some business owners.

 

[Lautaro]

Nah. Travel isn't necessary.

I'm already aware of the fact that other countries are much more progressive in terms of policing than the United States of America. The systems they have are to be applauded, and admired. We should strive to have something similar.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the US will never have a policing system in which human rights are respected (especially for ethnic minorities) and non-violence and rehabilitation are the actual goals of our justice system. It'll never happen. My response was more about the US and less about the rest of the world, because other countries have SIGNIFICANTLY better policing.

I think is just a matter of discipline. I live in a 3rd. world country that is also very conservative but the police seems to behave pretty well because they understand that the institution is more important than the members (the bad apples lose their works immediately). Of course, is easier when your police is a militarized organization without unions.

 

[vwnut13]

That's a really fucking stupid idea.

This sounds like a great idea!


Can't wait to see the massive spike in all crimes!

 

[Lautaro]

This is such a confusing argument! Shouldn't our goal then be to limit power instead of giving it to those who want it most? The police system attracts violent thugs who want to boss people around. The American government attracts greedy sons of bitches who want to get big fucking presents from their rich friends and make sure they stay rich. Capitalist business structures encourage a small group of enormous dicks to take all the money their employees generate. The system's current state is fucked up by the small group of assholes, and they've got us all convinced that's for the best! What you need is a system that actively works to keep power evenly distributed and democratic. You need a populace that is aware of the threats those selfish individuals pose and understand that they have the power collectively to stop that from happening. Yes, if everyone just sits on their butts and watches some motherfucker take over, it breaks down. But we know better now, so we can adjust things and make sure that doesn't happen. We just need to tear shit down first.

What a useless and naive rant. Tearing the system down has never worked, you fix it from within...

The French revolution lead to the Reign of Terror, the Cuban Revolution lead to a Communist Dictatorship that still lives, etc.

The system can only be improved from the inside. The most peaceful and developed countries in the world didn't tear their systems down to become what they are now, they did it by improving their existing systems one step at a time, the same will happen to the americans (and the rest of us).

 

[Enco]

lol at those saying this might work and the deniers are delusional.

Yea good luck with that. Enjoy your world of no police and then come back to reality when you're tired of it.

It's plain dumb.

 

[jackissocool]

What a useless and naive rant. Tearing the system down has never worked, you fix it from within...

The French revolution lead to the Reign of Terror, the Cuban Revolution lead to a Communist Dictatorship that still lives, etc.

The system can only be improved from the inside. The most peaceful and developed countries in the world didn't tear their systems down to become what they are now, they did it by improving their existing systems one step at a time, the same will happen to the americans (and the rest of us).

Really? Let's go back and tell George Washington not have that war, but to fix it from within! Also, cancel the Mexican revolution. And the Indian Revolution. And all of the Arab Spring. I can't believe I have to do this. I'm not going to carry on. Just fucking google "revolution". There are dozens of examples of successful ones. Do you seriously believe that if the people want change, they have to do it on the terms of their rulers?

Also...

There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

And kudos on effectively ignoring all of my actual arguments, I'm sure you're just formulating your terribly clever and thorough response.

 

[LOLDSFAN]

So, instead of some board of directors in a sky scraper owning a mine where workers work and the owners get all the coal or whatever, the miners control the way the mine operates. They own it, and in the long term, society would leave behind the profit motive as a primary driving factor (there are many other ways to motivate people - if you believe only greed can, you need to look at the shocking diversity of human economic and cultural systems that have little to no concept of greed), and the resources pulled from the mine would be used for the needs and desires of the people instead of the whims of some business owners.

Ok so we'll start working with your coal mining example.

We have 4 workers at this coal mining company. W1, W2, W3, and W4.

W1 is a very hard worker. He gets great satisfaction out of his work. (10 coal mined) He gets paid 10 currency.
W2 is a very hard worker. He loves mining but he's not very good at it. Sometimes he only gets a little bit of coal out of the mines. (5 coal mined) Regardless he gets paid 10 currency.
W3 sees that W1 and W2 are doing the majority of work. W3 is like what? I don't have to much since W1 and W2 work so hard. I think I'll just do the bare minimum and make it look like I'm working today. (1 coal mined) Hey I'll get 10 currency regardless.
W4 actually even isn't at work today. W4 is at home sleeping. He figures why should I even bother working? All of us workers will get paid the same regardless of what happens. (0 coal mined) with 10 currency.

At the end of the day we have 16 coals that were mined that has a cost of 40 currency. At optimal efficiency we should be getting 40 coals for 40 currency.

Shouldn't W1 get the most money since he works the hardest and gets the most coal? Why should W3 get the same amount of W1 when he has done less work? Should a lazy worker be rewarded for being lazy?

 

[neorej]

To eliminate poverty, one needs to examine how poverty began. In hunter-gatherer societies, there was no poverty. Poverty and, more importantly, the entire concept of class originated with the development of agriculture. Suddenly it became valuable to enclose and own land instead of simply living on it. Over thousands of years, this ownership became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Ownership = power. Ownership is limited, and therefore so is power. If power is limited, then those who seek it will also want others to have less - that's how they get more. Once people who want power have more than somebody else, they use it to increase their ownership relative to other people. Those power distinctions grow to create poverty among the powerless. What poverty really is is not poverty of money, but poverty of power and ownership. Therefore, in order to eliminate poverty, ownership (and thus power) must be redistributed to the people as evenly as possible.

To think our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't know poverty is a grave misconception on your behalf. Unless you define poverty as lack of ownership, in which case you've just described the great failed experiment we know as communism.

Back in the good old days where we'd live in caves and makeshift tents, the tribe had three tasks; take care of the needy (elderly, sick and infants), gather and hunt. We can still see this dynamic in tribal societies today. Everybody pulled their weight, every able body would either hunt, gather or take care of those unable to hunt or gather. Do you know WHY every tribesman joined in on the common good? Because if you didn't add to the tribe, you'd get kicked out of the tribe and you'd find yourself on the tundra alone, naked and surrounded by predators. That's the tribal equivalent of poverty; banishment.

In order to accomodate your utopian future we'd have to go back to tribal rule. Apart from being impossible due to our society being too big to accomodate tribal law, it would also implement a fundamental law that would oppose most humanists; banishment with a highly probable result of death. Back in the days, the tribe would decide whether a tribesman would be banished or not, imagine how that would translate to a society of 1, 2, or even 5 million people. We would all get an email saying how Joe the Plumber isn't doing any plumbing and we need to vote whether or not he gets banished?
No, we'd install a court, because then we'd have people dedicated to deciding who gets banished and who doesn't. But with installing the court, we'd immediatly detach ourselves from the hunter-gatherer-ideal because we'd empower a select group of people to decide things for us. And we'd have to hold elections to decide which people would take place in that court and hey, we just invented democracy!

 

[RoyaleDuke]

Right there is where you said that.

Anarchism doesn't rely on everyone watching out for eachother (although I do believe that would be the case!). It only relies on people not wanting to be fucked over by power-hungy madmen. And what exactly is your middle ground between a state and the abolition of the state? They're not ends of a spectrum, they're distinct opposites.

Also, humanism isn't a political philosophy, but an anti-religious one focused on humans over the supernatural.

And you're right, I'm sorry for the insult. It wasn't nearly as necessary as yours.


Something like that would be silly and ineffective. How exactly it manifests itself would vary based on culture and resources, so it's hard to give a single answer - the real world requires a diversity of answers. It's not limited to land, but all of the means of production - land, yes, but also factories, roads, office buildings, mines, etc. So, instead of some board of directors in a sky scraper owning a mine where workers work and the owners get all the coal or whatever, the miners control the way the mine operates. They own it, and in the long term, society would leave behind the profit motive as a primary driving factor (there are many other ways to motivate people - if you believe only greed can, you need to look at the shocking diversity of human economic and cultural systems that have little to no concept of greed), and the resources pulled from the mine would be used for the needs and desires of the people instead of the whims of some business owners.

Okay but I also pointed out the fact that in Anarchism specifically won't work because no one can agree on what it actually means to be an Anarchist. Thus, if one were to stretch the imagination just a little bit, you can see why I would come to the conclusion that Anarchism more or less devolves into lawlessness. Anarchy by its very definition is lawlessness, in defiance of authority and government for the freedom of the individual.
One need only turn their nose to a history book, as others before your post had alluded to(I.E. The French Revolution, The Cuban Revolution, hell why not quote Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge as another example) several instances that kind of point out the flaws in your arguments and ideals.

How I'm supposedly wrong and have an improper grasp of the concept is beyond me, when technically I'm actually correct. Also, Humanism is also an ethical philosophy, and ethics(or the lack of them) play a large role in Politics.

My post wasn't necessarily an insult, more sarcasm.

I'm going to politely exit this thread because, well, civil discussion in these types of matters devolves into namecalling.

The problems we face are much larger than just us, I'm sort of middle of the road on a lot of issues because well, there hasn't been a good solution for many issues outside of "Gee wouldn't it be nice if people didn't treat or let others live like that?"

The only thing we can do is try to improve and work on the system from within, completely destroying and abolishing it will do nothing.

 

[Lautaro]

Really? Let's go back and tell George Washington not have that war, but to fix it from within! Also, cancel the Mexican revolution. And the Indian Revolution. And all of the Arab Spring. I can't believe I have to do this. I'm not going to carry on. Just fucking google "revolution". There are dozens of examples of successful ones. Do you seriously believe that if the people want change, they have to do it on the terms of their rulers?

Also...


And kudos on effectively ignoring all of my actual arguments, I'm sure you're just formulating your terribly clever and thorough response.

Not really, I'm getting tired of this (this was a silly thread from the beginning anyway) but I'll just tell you this before leaving it (no point having a discussion if none of us want to really hear the position of the other): your examples just reinforce what I think about revolutions in general (specially the Arab Spring).

Regarding American "revolution", I don't consider it a real revolution, just a separatist war (I think the same about all "revolutions" in the continent including the one of my country).

See ya, keep fixing the world one post at a time...

 

[BouncyFrag]

We should also get rid of money while we are at it.

 

[BrassDragon]

As someone who deals with organised crime professionally, that post made my head hurt.

Christ on a bike, I wouldn't want to live in a world where the big bad guys get no pushback from society.

And no, they won't magically go away if you decriminalise parts of their business - they know how to diversify and expand into new markets better than many Fortune 500 companies. Violence is their core business, everything else is just putting violence to good use.

 

[neorej]

We should also get rid of money while we are at it.

Yes, and replace it with some form of trading commodity.

 

[Ikael]

The only non-hippytopian, realistic options are number 2 and 6. That being said, while you can argue that you will always need some kind of police corps (the article shows a high level of historical unaccuracy by claiming how police is a "modern" invention) I am far more skeptical of the notion of prision as a the "default" punishment of our justice system. Now that's an idea that we accept it just because "it has always been like that" (and a very modern one at that).

It consumes a massive amount of resources, it helps criminals connect each other, it increases violence, hell, the mere concept of jail is retarded: punishing antisocial behaviour by isolating people from society. Where's the logic in that?

Jail should be reserved as a last resort type of measure and only to violent, dangerous criminals, and noone else. Police personnel could be reduced then, albeit never fully elminated.

 

[Dilly]

Man, I love all the pseudo-intellectuals in this thread saying "can't work," without providing any sort of insight into their savant level understanding of sociology, psychology, and criminology.

That's right, only journalists are allowed to do this!

 

[MacNille]

I'm not surprise that the shitstain that is rolling stones publishes this.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

We should also get rid of money while we are at it.

That would actually be the Step 0 on this list if you really wanted to implement the things on that list

 

[TheJLC]

If so much crap happens with the presence of police, I can only image without police. Some of these points should be added to current crime reduction strategies not to replace crime fighting itself.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The only non-hippytopian, realistic options are number 2 and 6. That being said, while you can argue that you will always need some kind of police corps (the article shows a high level of historical unaccuracy by claiming how police is a "modern" invention) I am far more skeptical of the notion of prision as a the "default" punishment of our justice system. Now that's an idea that we accept it just because "it has always been like that" (and a very modern one at that).

It consumes a massive amount of resources, it helps criminals connect each other, it increases violence, hell, the mere concept of jail is retarded: punishing antisocial behaviour by isolating people from society. Where's the logic in that?

Jail should be reserved as a last resort type of measure and only to violent, dangerous criminals, and noone else. Police personnel could be reduced then, albeit never fully elminated.

Yea, you punish anti-social behavior by inviting them to all the parties.

 

[BrassDragon]

The only non-hippytopian, realistic options are number 2 and 6. That being said, while you can argue that you will always need some kind of police corps (the article shows a high level of historical unaccuracy by claiming how police is a "modern" invention) I am far more skeptical of the notion of prision as a the "default" punishment of our justice system. Now that's an idea that we accept it just because "it has always been like that" (and a very modern one at that).

It consumes a massive amount of resources, it helps criminals connect each other, it increases violence, hell, the mere concept of jail is retarded: punishing antisocial behaviour by isolating people from society. Where's the logic in that?

Jail should be reserved as a last resort type of measure and only to violent, dangerous criminals, and noone else. Police personnel could be reduced then, albeit never fully elminated.

Point 2: You can't really decriminalise property law (even the most utopian communist societies failed to do this)... in fact, I'd argue property law is one of the oldest building blocks of civilisation. So at the end of the day, you still have a body of laws that someone needs to uphold and enforce unless you want anarchy and 'might makes right'. Now those enforcers could be community volunteers but, truly, that's just cops by another name.

Point 6: Yes, mental health care is neglected in some (but hardly all) countries as an intrumental part of the justice system. However, this is not the silver bullet that author thinks it is - the sciences involved are far from exact and prone to both societal and personal bias. From what I've seen, a proper diagnosis alone is a major hurdle when treating unwilling and resisting patients... let alone treatment.

 

[neojubei]

Cop free world might be nice. A weapon free world would be better

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Let's start with better weapons regulation. Or educate people better on this matter.

 

[FartOfWar]

Really? Let's go back and tell George Washington not have that war, but to fix it from within! Also, cancel the Mexican revolution. And the Indian Revolution. And all of the Arab Spring. I can't believe I have to do this. I'm not going to carry on. Just fucking google "revolution". There are dozens of examples of successful ones. Do you seriously believe that if the people want change, they have to do it on the terms of their rulers?

Also...


And kudos on effectively ignoring all of my actual arguments, I'm sure you're just formulating your terribly clever and thorough response.

Twain didn't live to see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.

 

[Ikael]

Point 2: You can't really decriminalise property law (even the most utopian communist societies failed to do this)... in fact, I'd argue property law is one of the oldest building blocks of civilisation. So at the end of the day, you still have a body of laws that someone needs to uphold and enforce unless you want anarchy and 'might makes right'. Now those enforcers could be community volunteers but, truly, that's just cops by another name.

Yup, I never argued that modern society could function with no property rights or whatsoever, even if there has been ancient societies without them (or with a very loose definition of what is "private"). But I do mantain that jail should not be applied to non-violent crimes like theft, restorative justice could be far more efficient at safeguarding private property. Romans theirselves, which are pretty much the fathers of property rights and the judicial system itself, were extremely wary of employing jail as a punishment, as they (rightly) believed that it could easily become an instrument of political repression and that restoration mattered far more when it came to material goods which unlike human life, were replicable and thus, able to be compensated.

Point 6: Yes, mental health care is neglected in some (but hardly all) countries as an intrumental part of the justice system. However, this is not the silver bullet that author thinks it is - the sciences involved are far from exact and prone to both societal and personal bias. From what I've seen, a proper diagnosis alone is a major hurdle when treating unwilling and resisting patients... let alone treatment.

Psychiatric treatment should be forcefully employed when needed, sure. I don't believe that you can mantain order inside a socieyy with zero amount of forceful coertion (Rousseau was wrong). But a huge deal of crimes could be prevented with better access to mental healthcare, that's for sure. And the more separated you keep the mental ill from the criminal world, the better.

Yea, you punish anti-social behavior by inviting them to all the parties.

well you know what I meant by that people tend to fall into crime because they "disconnect" from society (or are not able to make that connection in the first place due to unemployement or other set of circumstances. Creating an alternate world / society more violent and authoritarian than ours (prision life) is a foolish answer to that problem, me thinks.

 

[BrassDragon]

Psychiatric treatment should be forcefully employed when needed, sure. I don't believe that you can mantain order inside a socieyy with zero amount of forceful coertion (Rousseau was wrong). But a huge deal of crimes could be prevented with better access to mental healthcare, that's for sure. And the more separated you keep the mental ill from the criminal world, the better.

I absolutely agree here and, at least, in the Netherlands, we are seeing a better partnership between health care and police. The problem is that success is measured in percentages (like '20% of caught burglars didn't go back to crime after we helped them with their addiction and debts')... but society only focuses on the cases that didn't work (headline: '80% of all caught burglars go back to crime, justice system fails!')

One thing I hope GAF takes away is that, at the strategic policy level, a lot of smart people within law-enforcement having these exact discussions, backed by the research of international universities.

The police is more than just the dude who writes you a ticket or kicks in your door.

 

[Zaptruder]

What exactly do you mean by ownership must be redistributed? Do you just mean ownership of land? Like everyone gets an acre of land or something?

I'm not sure what he specifically means... but there's an intellectual movement to shift the thinking of society away from an ownership based society... to an access based society.

In more concrete terms; instead of making things exclusively under the control of individuals, we have systems to distribute access to the utility provided by the thing.

Indeed, this is how society operates in various ways now (public goods) and in the past (feudalism).

The issue of maintenance is one that is tractable and solvable via forms of technology and economic ideas (surveillance + membership distribution).

Applied to our modern day society, things like Uber a movement towards access based society. The utility of driving is distributed via social networking tools. In the future, with better technology, we might have drone delivery that allows for access based paradigm of less commonly used household goods like ladders.

At its extents, the access based paradigm allows us to stretch the utilitarian value of any created object substantially, while significantly reducing redundancy. Maintenance issues are dealt with via automated labour, and or intelligent community rules based structure.

 

[FyreWulff]

Don't think the anarchy model is going to work at all.

Demilitarizing the police, banning former military members from becoming police and banning policemen from going into the military would be a good start, though.

Also, a rehabilitation system that's less destructive to communities and families would work wonders.

 

[Gonzalez]

so...like cops?

No not like cops. They'll be citizens on patrol.