Turn on thread page Beta

D&D PTP&P's "Ask An Anarchist" Thread watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    But surely those who are driven to crime are those who have nothing lose, and in a free market therefore they have nothing to give. How do you punish those who steal or damage another persons property if they have no money to compensate the victim and no service to offer the victim instead? Since your suggestion is that there would be no prisons how would one go about ensuring everyone's rights to their own property are protected?
    In Mexico, the Zapatista movement treats criminals as normal citizens who have done wrong or made a mistake. In payment, they must help with aiding the community welfare; for example, helping to build something.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Plenty of people commit crimes, not merely those with "nothing to lose". I suspect you're referring to the homeless who are living at the margins of society in desperation? Such people would have a much better standard in anarcho-capitalism. Not only would there be fewer (since most governmental policies widen the pool of poverty) at absolute poverty, but the base of absolute poverty itself would become lower. So, there would be less-and-less of those living in absolute poverty. Those who commit such crimes and are that poor (after all, they have nothing to lose), would be stealing food from shops and such like ... And so the question is a individual question of how far they protect their property. Do they install security locks? Do they have password-access doors? Agreements with their private protection agencies and insurance companies would compel most to protect their property, even if they don't wish to?! Moreover, the thief would have to take the risk that there isn't a chap inside with shotgun ready to blow his head off! Theft is as much about punishment, as it is risk-taking at the time of theft.
    The problem isn't necessarily theft, but how about random acts of violence? How someone who committed assault, if they have nothing then how does one compensate the victim and how is 'justice' (I don't like using that word since you will inevitably use semantics to show that justice is only relevant when exercising power) served?

    Absolute anarchism seems to benefit not the victim, but the perpetrator of the crime in this instance.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Keckers)
    The problem isn't necessarily theft, but how about random acts of violence? How someone who committed assault, if they have nothing then how does one compensate the victim and how is 'justice' (I don't like using that word since you will inevitably use semantics to show that justice is only relevant when exercising power) served?

    Absolute anarchism seems to benefit not the victim, but the perpetrator of the crime in this instance.
    I am not sure how you came to that sweeping conclusion about who benefits without government!

    There will be some crime. I can't imagine any system where there isn't any crime. Laissez-faire Capitalism is a system where people undergo voluntary transactions. It is not about punishing people or preventing crime. Your last sentence would imply that anarchism serves a purpose, in terms of crime??

    If you try to punch me, then you have to take a certain amount of risk. All human actions carry a risk, and we have to decide whether the gain is higher than the risks involved. For instance, if I am a rugby player, chances are that I'll knock-you-out. But as a random chap, I'll probably have a PPA (Private protection agency) who'll follow the case up. So you have to take the risk of future hassle from a reputable PPA. If I have stolen, then the victim can easily be compensated by the victim. If he was assaulted, then there is no reason why I can't punch him back. Surely then, both parties have resolved their problems?

    I don't even understand the point off all of this. Do you think government benefits the victim, as opposed to anarchism? Government, in the UK, have made burglary a very lucrative & safe career choice. It is illegal to inflict force on a burglar, and you better just wait till the police arrived, and just watch him steal your stuff. So, I really don't know where this is all going ...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am not sure how you came to that sweeping conclusion about who benefits without government!

    There will be some crime. I can't imagine any system where there isn't any crime. Laissez-faire Capitalism is a system where people undergo voluntary transactions. It is not about punishing people or preventing crime. Your last sentence would imply that anarchism serves a purpose, in terms of crime??

    If you try to punch me, then you have to take a certain amount of risk. All human actions carry a risk, and we have to decide whether the gain is higher than the risks involved. For instance, if I am a rugby player, chances are that I'll knock-you-out. But as a random chap, I'll probably have a PPA (Private protection agency) who'll follow the case up. So you have to take the risk of future hassle from a reputable PPA. If I have stolen, then the victim can easily be compensated by the victim. If he was assaulted, then there is no reason why I can't punch him back. Surely then, both parties have resolved their problems?

    I don't even understand the point off all of this. Do you think government benefits the victim, as opposed to anarchism? Government, in the UK, have made burglary a very lucrative & safe career choice. It is illegal to inflict force on a burglar, and you better just wait till the police arrived, and just watch him steal your stuff. So, I really don't know where this is all going ...
    I just don't see how the free market will be able to dispense justice, it isn't exactly going to be an area where a company can make money from punishing people, as you said yourself, prisons are expensive to run. I agree that the current governmental law system is flawed, but this is the one instance where I can't see a free market system (I consider myself quite an extreme libertarian) being able to replace a governmental service.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Keckers)
    .
    You're looking at everything & the free-market from the perspective of what it ought and ought not be doing, which is looking at humans and telling them what to do ... I made a point to tell Annoying-Mouse that you need to get rid of preconceived notions of justice. For instance, you think someone ought to be going around punishing people, and therefore imposing your vision of justice on everyone in society. Now since you inform me of your libertarian ideals, I am inclined to think you have less off that "imposition gene". The problem is that we can't even conceive of law and justice without government. Most libertarians tend to twitch awkwardly at the notion. If two people have a dispute, what does it have to do with you? Let them solve it on their own. The free-market will allow them to do so. If they want to have a duel at dawn, or take it to an arbitrator, then so be it. But your vision encompasses having a sole individual - with his own vision of justice imposed on everyone - with a coercive monopoly on dispense of justice! In short, people will buy "justice", in as much as they buy any other good. Arbitrators will setup and allow people to make use of their service.

    I still really don't understand you concern, unless you believe natural rights or universal rights ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    ...
    I'd like to point out that not all anarchists are opposed to prison (well ok, most of us are opposed to prison but not rehabilitation centres) and we don't all rely upon a capitalistic free market to solve crime and so forth. I won't go into much more detail unless you are interested in the social and individualist anarchist perspectives (i.e. other perspectives besides anarcho-capitalist ones).

    Of course, some anarchists believe that criminals should be made to help the community and so forth. I support this stance but only to the level that it is petty offenders we are talking about (Anarchy indicated how the Zapatista in Chiapas, Mexico, where there has been an ongoing worker's revolution for some time, deal with crime). More serious offenders (rapists, paedophiles, murderers and so forth) do need to be locked up (in my opinion) otherwise there is no freedom for their potential victims. Some anarchists may suggest exile to a practically deserted geographical location but one where there is an abundance of economic resources. Others would simply use capital punishment. Anarchism is a diverse spectrum of political thought. I believe that some anarcho-capitalists would support the use of private protection agencies, privatised law courts and privatised prison facilities (myself and the other user, Anarchy, are [or for the most part] opposed to capitalism on moral grounds but it is best not to go there).

    One thing to note though, is that (a) people have means to protect themselves (guns would be legalised), (b) poverty is a key cause of crime (greed also if you are a social or individualist anarchist) and (c) free education (again this is from a social/individualist anarchist perspective) helps (yes, I know education is already free in western societies. I am merely pointing out that it can help. Also, we would aim to improve education.) I would argue that existing material conditions (presence or lack of education, attitudes around you, parenting, schooling, abundance/lack of goods, etc.) shape the personality of the individual in society. With the correct extraneous material conditions, we believe that the individual in society will have less criminal tendencies.

    Taking into account everything I've said above, it is not unanarchistic for society to deal with crime: a key part of anarchism is freedom, and it is not freedom to be a victim of crime.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    Interesting thoughts there. I think I'd agree with you that the Zapatista method works the best for petty criminals but you come to a problem when you hit more serious crimes, I agree. Personally, I feel that you should implement some kind of rehabilitation program (as opposed to prison) for people who have committed such crimes. I suppose you could place someone under house arrest for this period of time (more drastic action would probably have to be taken if the person was, for example, mentally volatile) where the program is initiated. I don't really buy prison working in the long run but it definitely does prevent those criminals from re offending during their time in gaol. In my view, however, if you really want to change the culture and mitigate the possibility of the crime happening again, rehabilitation is the best solution.

    Have you read how the Spanish worked in a gift economy? I thought it was very interesting. Sorry for repeating myself if I have but the system essentially worked by all labourers in a commune being issued with a kind of voucher book which served as a passport; basically indicating they were a member of the commune. With this voucher book, resources can be limited (as decided by council in the commune) by the amount of vouchers someone has and it also meant that no one had to pay for anything. You simply traded in a voucher for whatever you need.

    Also, considering it's been in the news recently, what do you think about the complete legalisation of all drugs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Interesting thoughts there. I think I'd agree with you that the Zapatista method works the best for petty criminals but you come to a problem when you hit more serious crimes, I agree. Personally, I feel that you should implement some kind of rehabilitation program (as opposed to prison) for people who have committed such crimes. I suppose you could place someone under house arrest for this period of time (more drastic action would probably have to be taken if the person was, for example, mentally volatile) where the program is initiated. I don't really buy prison working in the long run but it definitely does prevent those criminals from re offending during their time in gaol. In my view, however, if you really want to change the culture and mitigate the possibility of the crime happening again, rehabilitation is the best solution.
    To be honest, I just can't see the logic behind abolishing rehabilitation centres (I think prisons should be abolished but we should retain a more humane standard of imprisonment). I understand that most anarchists want to be uncompromisingly against socially coercive institutions (like prisons) in society but the fact of the matter is that there are principles and then there is reality. In reality I don't get too emotionally involved with the idea of punishing criminals for the sake of emotional vengeance but on a more practical level I do see the need to protect society from potential threats. I suppose an anarchist can defend this position on the grounds of hierarchy; that a criminal has a hierarchy over his victims which must be abolished like all other forms of hierarchy. If I can see an alternative to prison (and the best alternative I can think of would be exile in isolation - the scenario of a small island with an abundance of resources) then I will happily embrace it but until then, imprisonment is a necessary evil to keep members of society safe.

    Have you read how the Spanish worked in a gift economy? I thought it was very interesting. Sorry for repeating myself if I have but the system essentially worked by all labourers in a commune being issued with a kind of voucher book which served as a passport; basically indicating they were a member of the commune. With this voucher book, resources can be limited (as decided by council in the commune) by the amount of vouchers someone has and it also meant that no one had to pay for anything. You simply traded in a voucher for whatever you need.
    No, I have not had the time to read the articles you posted yet but it sounds interesting. I think that the circumstances for a gift economy should be available for those who desire to get involved in the commune but they should also be free to trade goods and services for money if they desire. Communists often argue that the abolition of money is the key to abolishing the root of evil but I think it is far easier to first do away with private property rights and see how the trend in society moves. It would probably be disastrous, in any case, to abolish something that has so much importance in the economy.

    Also, considering it's been in the news recently, what do you think about the complete legalisation of all drugs?
    I think that we should legalise drugs but the community (or failing that, the government, at least giving the already existing material circumstances and the fact that anarchy is no reality in the present day) should crack down on serious drug dealing offenders (this would be easier to do with drugs legalised). Criminalising drugs just creates a black market for crime, violence and exploitation and in any case, who are we to say what other people can and cannot consume or inject into their bodies?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    IBut as a random chap, I'll probably have a PPA (Private protection agency) who'll follow the case up. So you have to take the risk of future hassle from a reputable PPA.
    LH: purely from a learning, and not debating, point of view, now, how exactly would these private protection agencies work?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Of course, some anarchists believe that criminals should be made to help the community and so forth....
    Can you ask why you're opposed to government? I can't help but read this post and feel that you're assuming the role of government ... the capacity to order people around ...
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    LH: purely from a learning, and not debating, point of view, now, how exactly would these private protection agencies work?
    Hey there,

    I'll make a massive post on this in a few days, with pictures and everything.

    In the meantime, I'm enjoying some reading the works of an art historian on the individualism of Renaissance & Baroque art. That, and my hot chocolate .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    To be honest, I just can't see the logic behind abolishing rehabilitation centres (I think prisons should be abolished but we should retain a more humane standard of imprisonment). I understand that most anarchists want to be uncompromisingly against socially coercive institutions (like prisons) in society but the fact of the matter is that there are principles and then there is reality. In reality I don't get too emotionally involved with the idea of punishing criminals for the sake of emotional vengeance but on a more practical level I do see the need to protect society from potential threats. I suppose an anarchist can defend this position on the grounds of hierarchy; that a criminal has a hierarchy over his victims which must be abolished like all other forms of hierarchy. If I can see an alternative to prison (and the best alternative I can think of would be exile in isolation - the scenario of a small island with an abundance of resources) then I will happily embrace it but until then, imprisonment is a necessary evil to keep members of society safe.
    Sure. I mean, I agree with your sentiment. There really is little point in abolishing rehabilitation. As you say, it would make more sense to abolish prisons but then there is the problem of what to do if this happens. I don't believe it is a necessary evil at all actually. I think there are many viable alternatives to prevent the criminal from re offending. For example, it could be possible to implement programmes where the culprit comes face to face with the victim. I know that this has been done many times in Northern Ireland to great effect because a criminal is normally never desensitised to the after effects he or she has caused. In special cases, however, I would advocate a prison system. Obviously violence or repression is the tool of the hierarchy but there are times at which it should be used and I think justice is one of them.

    No, I have not had the time to read the articles you posted yet but it sounds interesting. I think that the circumstances for a gift economy should be available for those who desire to get involved in the commune but they should also be free to trade goods and services for money if they desire. Communists often argue that the abolition of money is the key to abolishing the root of evil but I think it is far easier to first do away with private property rights and see how the trend in society moves. It would probably be disastrous, in any case, to abolish something that has so much importance in the economy.
    Agreed. Whilst there should be a gift economy, I in no way think it should, or can, ever replace the currency system for external affairs and possibly some internal ones. In any case, the imposition of any system wouldn't be anarchic and impossible to regulate in a system with no centralised power. I agree with Communists to an extent but I don't think you can, as I have said, completely abolish money. Its position as a sole focus and it's power as a bartering tool should be heavily reduced in my opinion however.

    I think that we should legalise drugs but the community (or failing that, the government, at least giving the already existing material circumstances and the fact that anarchy is no reality in the present day) should crack down on serious drug dealing offenders (this would be easier to do with drugs legalised). Criminalising drugs just creates a black market for crime, violence and exploitation and in any case, who are we to say what other people can and cannot consume or inject into their bodies?
    I agree with you in the current climate it would be better to legalise drugs. Some say that this would put a strain on the health service, however, because there would then be a lot more state responsibility on substance abusers. My view is that it is the state's job to look after such people and if it does cause a strain, then something should be done to make drugs less lucrative. In anarchy, it would be a different matter of course because there is no real law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Can you ask why you're opposed to government? I can't help but read this post and feel that you're assuming the role of government ... the capacity to order people around ...
    I don't think it would be a decision taken from a centralised power. It's more a decision of the community. While that's not as devolved as individualism, and we could disagree on this for hours , I believe a commune is a natural state of living and therefore, it makes the most sense that decisions would be made in that way. That said, I don't see any reason why two people can't work out a punishment privately.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I believe a commune is a natural state of living
    Lol. And I think anarcho-capitalism is a natural state too!

    Do you do anything else besides politics? Hobbies, etc ?

    Edit: That wasn't meant to sound sarcastic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Can you ask why you're opposed to government? I can't help but read this post and feel that you're assuming the role of government ... the capacity to order people around ...
    The truth is that, I did not "choose" the word. I chose the ideology and the ideology happened to be associated with the history of nearly two centuries of radical authors and movements who all described themselves as "anarchists". They don't see the word as being a lack of governance, rather a lack of irrational or hierarchical authority. Left wing anarchists count the state and capitalism under this definition. You can criticise me for calling capitalism authoritarian and hierarchical but this is part of the extensive rhetoric that has been flowing from the mouths of social and individual anarchists such Peter Kropotkin, Benjamin Tucker, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and so forth. I am merely continuing the tradition however I am going to be staying away from debate for a while to engage in learning - the result of a "psychological burnout", if you will. To do as you please would entail the diminution of the civil liberties others may entail and this would be no anarchy for me. However, I also visualise there would be a far greater freedom to pursue activities free from financial restraints and free from unnecessary government measure under anarchy than under government. I would legalise drugs, prostitution and so forth, for instance. People would also have greater variety in their line of work. Community would also be important and with a stronger community, there would be a stronger social life available, I feel, for many people who at present find themselves isolated in one way or another whether it be from unco-operative labour, financial restraints or other factors.

    As you are probably aware, I can easily turn this government argument back on you with your support for PPAs enforcing private property and solving disputes of legal sorts (which in reality would require some degree of force or coercion at some point despite the problems of expenditures because not everyone would be able to peacefully resolve disputes with criminals by themselves), amongst other issues of a political nature that ancaps have to deal with. But I do not wish to do so and do not expect you to respond to this particular point, because, again we are just discussing petty, meaningless semantics here that get mindnumbingly boring after a point.

    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Sure. I mean, I agree with your sentiment. There really is little point in abolishing rehabilitation. As you say, it would make more sense to abolish prisons but then there is the problem of what to do if this happens. I don't believe it is a necessary evil at all actually. I think there are many viable alternatives to prevent the criminal from re offending. For example, it could be possible to implement programmes where the culprit comes face to face with the victim. I know that this has been done many times in Northern Ireland to great effect because a criminal is normally never desensitised to the after effects he or she has caused. In special cases, however, I would advocate a prison system. Obviously violence or repression is the tool of the hierarchy but there are times at which it should be used and I think justice is one of them."
    I would agree with the basic idea behind most of this. How the justice system would work under anarchy is something that members of society would have to sort out between themselves, however.

    Agreed. Whilst there should be a gift economy, I in no way think it should, or can, ever replace the currency system for external affairs and possibly some internal ones. In any case, the imposition of any system wouldn't be anarchic and impossible to regulate in a system with no centralised power. I agree with Communists to an extent but I don't think you can, as I have said, completely abolish money. Its position as a sole focus and it's power as a bartering tool should be heavily reduced in my opinion however.
    Yes, I see myself closer to the collectivist and syndicalist currents than the communist currents of anarchism. The important thing, in terms of bargaining, of course is that there is an equilibrium of force on both sides of the market exchange.

    I agree with you in the current climate it would be better to legalise drugs. Some say that this would put a strain on the health service, however, because there would then be a lot more state responsibility on substance abusers. My view is that it is the state's job to look after such people and if it does cause a strain, then something should be done to make drugs less lucrative. In anarchy, it would be a different matter of course because there is no real law.
    If drug users can come forwards it will be far cheaper to treat them legally with the doses of substances they have become addicted to. It will become less of a popular "trend", if you will, to consume drugs that old, worn-out abusers have to shoot up in local healthcare clinics. We will also save police money having to chase around offenders and so forth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Lol. And I think anarcho-capitalism is a natural state too!

    Do you do anything else besides politics? Hobbies, etc ?

    Edit: That wasn't meant to sound sarcastic.
    OK. Fair comment.

    Well, I'm interested in a fair few things. I like a whole bunch of different music, current affairs (although that might slot into politics depending on your view), computing, literature and psychology and/or philosophy. No need to apologise. How about you? What other interests do you have?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I would agree with the basic idea behind most of this. How the justice system would work under anarchy is something that members of society would have to sort out between themselves, however.
    Yes, agreed on this point.

    Yes, I see myself closer to the collectivist and syndicalist currents than the communist currents of anarchism. The important thing, in terms of bargaining, of course is that there is an equilibrium of force on both sides of the market exchange.
    True, but how do you say it can be guaranteed that this is the case? For example, one service or person may be more valuable (in whatever sense) than whoever they are dealing with.

    If drug users can come forwards it will be far cheaper to treat them legally with the doses of substances they have become addicted to. It will become less of a popular "trend", if you will, to consume drugs that old, worn-out abusers have to shoot up in local healthcare clinics. We will also save police money having to chase around offenders and so forth.
    Sure. This is true but you may experience, at least initially, a huge influx of drug users which would consequently put a strain on the health service. As far as trends go, I wouldn't like to predict how the mentality of people would form regarding drug use. I agree, however, that less money would be spent catching people who use drugs, if any at all.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am not sure what books to recommend tbh, as an introduction. Most of them are pretty long-winded, and seem to go endlessly, but the best - in my view - is Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. Unfortunately, it is bloody hard to get. And yes, I rent it for sexual services ..

    Ta da!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Ta da!
    This needs to go on the OP! :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oooh, I have a question (mostly for the capitalist types) - where does your ontology of "rights" come from? Why are they absolute? Why are they important? Are they a means to an end or an end in themselves? Couched in Libertarian terms, ownership cannot exist without the self and the self cannot exist without ownership - can self-ownership exist?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.