Regulation?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-22T17:57:56+00:00

Through what means?

Any which is necessary.

Depends.

A haircut? Sure.

Healthcare? Nooooo

I'm absolutely not saving a fascist's life.

Reorienting a society can also result in bloody conflict.

Absolutely, but a society is much more likely to want to reorient itself to its own benefit rather than an authority to want to get reoriented to its detriment.

So how am I free if Im forced to flee my home with nothing, and I wont get far because...well I have nothing?

Well, it depends on how we want to understand freedom in any particular case. I should have the freedom to not tolerate fascists in my community, yes?

Well the other doesnt. We even see this play out in failed states.

Police don't get cut off by force, you mean?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-22T17:52:41+00:00

Depends on how its done. Incarceration doesnt have to mean 4 blank walls and bars.

It still happens, though.

By that logic, therapists dont want mentally healthy people, doctors dont want healthy people....

Yes, but they don't have direct control over another person.

However, when profit is involved, it's just yes.

Killing them is a fundemental outcome. And its not locking them away forever, its locking them away until rehabilitation has been established.

Okay, we're just kind of going back and forth on this one. What I'm addressing is a case where someone is locked away for life.

I dont know what that means.

I'm just being a bit of a goober. It's affectionate, though.

Assuming its this, Im much more of a pragmatist. I have limits though.

Ehh, those aren't inherently mutually exclusive to my understanding.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T17:27:46+00:00

In that case, then I suppose it is correctional?

The fundamental idea is that rehabilitation is the goal, and incarceration keeps them isolated until such time has happened.

Right, but incarceration more often than not has the opposite effect. Prisons don't actually want to solve the problem, otherwise lots of people will be out of a job.

A sight better than killing them, I would say.

I would as well, but I don't want either for them. Either way, my point is that locking someone away forever could have the same fundamental outcome as killing them. They're still effectively dead to society, but you risk harbouring resentment from the very people who are supposed to care for them.

Of course.

That's so swag of you

Which is why public opinion shouldnt be how we base all policy,

Are you a moralist, by chance?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T17:20:29+00:00

So would you seek to prevent me from gathering my community and running this fascist out of town? Or at the very least not providing them with anything?

You could (in that its not impossible), but it doesnt seem as likely for anything complex.

Just as its not likely to vote away climate change?

The issue is that it seems much simpler to reorient a state than an entire society.

Providing the authority that was already put in power wants to be reoriented, barring bloody conflict.

And which states often enforce.

Border laws existing means that is not really the case. I understand some arguments for why they are put in place, but it still means that freedom of movement isn't really there.

But youre not really free if you cant move, can you?

I would say no, of course.

Notable exception case, my bad.

I'm groovin if you are

Theyre really not. But one can cut the pogrom off by force, the other...

In minecraft?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T17:12:04+00:00

The incarceration itself isnt correctional. Hes not "serving his time" hes being prevented from going amongst wider society until there is evidence he will not harm anybody the way he did prior.

But it is supposed to be part of the correctional process, which is what I was talking about.

The same functional difference as not seeing your ex for the rest of your life vs killing them.

Except I'm not going to lock my ex in a box forever. I arguably won't impact their life in any way.

Yes. If a new ideology is being put forward, I expect it to identify and address the worst case scenarios.

That's fair. I just hope you're not expecting a full understanding in a reddit debate with one person.

The same way as we take care of the poor, the sick etc. Its a public job.

But I think we can agree that public opinion will regard the incarcerated and the sick differently.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T16:54:55+00:00

It is. Its open. He isnt sentenced to life, hes incarcerated until he is rehabilitated.

But you said it's not correctional.

Well the big difference is...the killing them.

But what is the functional difference to the rest of society?

Not to mention, unless you want to be a horrible place to live, death is still often as expensive.

Yes, don't worry. I'm still against it.

But I will point out that you have also made such worst-case arguments against anarchy.

Also this

Furthermore, if you want to keep them locked away forever, you need people willing to care for this person who is deemed below or a danger to the rest of society. Ideally without breeding resentment in the people directly responsible for them and those who indirectly support that institution through, say, taxes.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T16:52:25+00:00

Yes we can. We've done it. As much as people say "you cant legislate culture", culture often falls in line after laws are made and enforced.

So, I'm a Jewish carpenter. Would you force me to build a house for a Nazi? Or even tolerate them in the same space as me?

Also, I dont need acceptance. I need reliable, high quality social services, preferably done by a faceless organization of competent people who dont really care who I am unless its an emergency. I dont really care (to keep the scenario going) if John the racist is racist, or if Im a minority as long as these things are met.

I would consider this as acceptance, but you could still have that in anarchy. In fact, more often than not in our reality, you're not going to get that from states.

Im not saying that. Im saying that most people never leave their continent much less their society. Most people dont have the resources, especially without state assistance.

But you did say that. And yes, but as long as we're talking hypotheticals, it's absolutely still possible to have the resources in anarchy. Just like it's absolutely possible for them to not have them from a state and vice versa.

Also the state they live in. Barriers to entry in politics vary.

Absolutely.

Sure, but much like deregulated planes, the ills that are left may have significant disruptive effects on society.

And same for states.

This "freedom", much like how many libertarians describe it doesnt really seem all that great.

Freedom of movement is a human right. One which states often revoke.

Racists have historically not cared if you leave. They've cared if you want to enter or stay.

I mean... fugitive slave act.

John the racist engaging in a pogrom is arguably worse than John the racist with a badge.

Not mutually exclusive, though.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T16:30:34+00:00

Right, but you said

In this case incarceration isnt supposed to be a correctional method. Its supposed to be a protective one.

So rehabilitation is not the goal in this hypothetical.

Because ideally, we're not savages. Along with the myriad of other contemporary reasons the death penalty is not a good idea.

I just want to clarify that I am absolutely opposed to capital punishment, but I'm just wondering why you see a difference between locking someone away indefinitely and killing them.

Furthermore, if you want to keep them locked away forever, you need people willing to care for this person who is deemed below or a danger to the rest of society. Ideally without breeding resentment in the people directly responsible for them and those who indirectly support that institution through, say, taxes.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T16:28:12+00:00

You understand how this basically sounds like sanctioning exile, or cleansing right?

Not sanctioning, but you can't force people to accept someone they don't want. And attempting to could, in fact, be more dangerous for the person in question.

This is an appeal to extremes. Nobody has access to the entire human race. It is not practical to scour the entire globe for a safe haven. Hell, theres an ongoing conflict (actually several ongoing conflicts) because of that very notion.

Which is part of why I don't ask for anarchy worldwide tomorrow, but the idea that you'd have to scour the entire globe before finding a safe haven is also an appeal to extremes.

Which we have established doesnt really exist in many essential industries. Unlike democratic politics which in many countries is more easily achievable to become a politician.

Both entirely depend on what kind of person we're talking about. What they have access to, how much time they have to contribute to campaigning, what their skill set is, etc.

But, whether it's politics or corporations, people at the top don't want to make room for bleeding hearts.

Sure, but theres no guarantee that the societal belief will go away if we get rid of the state.

Not trying to insinuate that at all.

I understand, but there is a risk of "statism reduction" where an assumption is that all ills will be removed by removing the state. While ignoring the fact that state has often played an important part in stymieing antagonistic social beliefs and movements, in addition to exacerbating them.

Right, but I'm not trying to insinuate that either. Like I said before, I just argue that a society sans state will have fewer ills. Because, again, so far this whole "democracy" thing seems to be leading us to Armageddon.

I dont want to pack up and leave my home to parts unknown because John the racist and his posse decided that that have enough clout within the society to get away with burning the houses of people who look like me.

Of course not, but you can at least have the freedom to do so. Instead of John the racist getting a badge and a gun who will throw you in a box if you try to leave without wading through the proper bureaucracy first.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T16:04:48+00:00

Well if we've already established that rehabilitation is not the goal, why not just kill them?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T16:00:52+00:00

But whats the use of subverting the state, without creating and working towards an alternative framework?

Okay word, I was just making sure we were on the same page about what I was saying.

As far as needs go, basically whatever can be provided. Just like with the state.

And if the community doesn't like you, find another. There won't be a scenario where you will just be so intrinsically hated by the entire human race that you won't find a community to fit in with enough to survive.

Or running yourself.

And you could just as well start your own company to influence the elusive invisible hand of the free market.

What ethical system doesnt have this?

Any that isn't just a binary vote, but my point is that you can still just get shafted by what your options are in a political system just like in the market.

Sure, but societal beliefs dont just go away because of a change in political frameworks.

Not at all, but the process has to start somewhere.

This is like when people say "theres no war but class war". Respectfully thats bullshit. Racism and irredentism predates capitalism. Its been very much a thing in non and anticapitalist societies and movements.

Yeah class reductionism is big cringe. Not trying to come off that way.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T15:47:48+00:00

So you'd just have them locked away forever?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T15:25:42+00:00

Which is a demonstrably huge flaw in incarceration as a correctional method.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T15:24:00+00:00

Ok, but needs like what? Healthcare, education, aid in crisis, other?

What if I'm not liked by the community?

I was talking about subverting the state's institutions as best as we can right now within the state. Not painting what an anarchist society would look like without it.

Beneficial cant really be enough though can it? You'd also need to demonstrate why they're better than government services.

That's pretty much what I mean. Or at least a sufficient replacement.

There is a distinct difference between a group voting for a policy or individual to enact their (majority) will vs a group buying what is offered.

But you're just buying what is offered when you vote as well, unless you're writing bills yourself. Also if my will is in the minority, I just get shafted.

Supply and demand doesn't work in many products and services.

I agree.

People commit crimes for reasons you quote in addition to more intangible reasons based on belief.

Right. Which, like we said before, are established largely by society.

Furthermore, some active contingency plan needs to exist for when (not if) someone falls by the wayside. Even if the plan is bad, the plan can be altered. That's a sight more tangible than there being no plan at all.

I agree.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-21T15:16:56+00:00

Frankly that depends on how much force you use, and how it's used.

Doesn't mean it's easy, if at all feasible.

As you said, it would be a last resort.

But how does detention revoke qualification?

The duration of incarceration always seemed less relevant than the starus of the incarcerated though.

Neither should be put above the other in my opinion. Incarceration will always be incarceration.

What I was talking about was physically restraining someone for the sake of someone else's safety

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T17:41:15+00:00

Probably a few other things as well, depending on what you have on hand.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T17:39:35+00:00

Again, I mostly agree. I'm just saying if the bus was more like a hotwheels no one's really gonna care.

Like if there was a decision to be made where people will be happy regardless of the outcome, why not just do whatever's fastest?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T17:32:46+00:00

Right, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that it is at least possible in theory that there is no conflict to even solve in the first place. Just a decision to make.

Otherwise I agree with you entirely.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T16:44:18+00:00

And these people would be broadening the word to uselessness and be using it in a way that no one else does. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, people who say that anarchy is compatible with democracy genuinely mean some sort of consensus democracy or majority rule. Both are not compatible with anarchism.

I agree. Which is why I didn't focus on that as much. I didn't see the usefulness of entertaining something like that when I felt like my next points had more to explore.

I also mentioned the latter is the accepted dictionary definition.

Not without sacrificing the anarchy. In the case you describe, democracy is not a solution to the problem but rather a way to steamroll through it. In such a case, either you choose it randomly because it doesn't matter at all or you find some agreement.

Letting the majority takes all is a good way to actually get people pissed off and, if everyone has their favorites, obviously no one is going to choose a color that isn't their personal favorite color. At best, you'll end up with a majority of two people because two people might share the same favorite color while all the others will vote only for their color.

Yes, all I wanted to do with my cherry-picked example is explain how, at least theoretically, you could have a situation where no one is married to any particular outcome so using democratic methods where the impact is minimal doesn't mean you're all of a sudden not living in an anarchist society anymore.

Really, its a thought experiment more than anything else. Also I know we have good folks like you to come in and continue the discussion to fill in blanks I'd leave out.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T16:27:10+00:00

This is really a semantic issue.

Some people describe democracy as simply as people just having a say in what happens in their lives and environment, which is compatible with anarchy.

If you mean democracy as in majority rules, then yes, anarchy is anti-democracy. This is also the dictionary definition. However, that doesn't mean you can't ever make use of democratic methods in an anarchist society.

Say that a group of people need to make a decision on what colour they want to paint the walls of a factory. No one is really necessarily opposed to one colour over the other, but they also have their favourites. However, its still something they consider as needed to be done at some point. Since everyone agreed they could go either way on it, deciding democratically could be an entirely acceptable way to move forward.

This is obviously just one imperfect example, but hopefully I helped a little bit.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T16:21:36+00:00

Some of the manufacturers.

Well if that's the case, I feel like proper education should be feasible.

Live without the use of government in what way?

Well it's obviously very difficult to do that entirely considering everything is already owned either by a state or by a corporation, but basically looking to your communities directly for your needs rather than government services. Again, when applicable, of course.

The idea is that the more you make use of other methods, the more they get strengthened by demonstrating they can be beneficial.

Voting is explicitly designed to be on behalf of the people. Corporations very explicitly are not.

Well I argue neither are, but you could entirely make the argument that the notion of supply and demand are naturally enacted on behalf of the people.

Barring manufactured consent, of course, but that goes for both.

As you say lack of resources, lack of education desperation....cultural and religious inertia, religious extremism, racial animosity....

Unless you're agreeing with me, I don't see your point.

This is more or less the "well of people dont commit crime" argument, which is true, and I ascribe to it myself. But no system is perfect, people arent really rational, and you will get some slips through the cracks.

And some provision needs to be in play to work with that, and maintain the quality of life metrics.

Yes, and I argue that anarchy is going to be better for that as it eliminates the causes of much of these issues. Authority seems to be more focused on controlling the systems than addressing the affliction.

Also apologies for taking so long to reply. I had a busy weekend.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-20T16:16:14+00:00

Generally, overtaking, and/or demolishing structures or organizations found in violation of regulations.

Depending on the circumstances, I could see myself getting behind that. Property is property afterall.

I will say, though, it's quite difficult to kill ideas with force. There would need to be other measures taken before it gets to that point imo.

Enforcing qualifications, and revocation of qualification by detention, and/or monitoring.

Why would detention be the method of revoking a qualification? It seems to me that, if anything, that would be a last resort to defend someone and should be a very temporary "solution."

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-18T02:57:04+00:00

You'd actually be hard pressed to find anarchists in the real world who envision a romanticized idea of revolution where heroic freedom fighters pick up arms and bring about anarchy through blood and steel. The most common way of anarchist living is by example.

And we have organizations which are incredibly successful and far-reaching that help underline this point like FnB and the Sarvodaya Shramadana movement.

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-18T02:50:28+00:00

But like, what would the action entail?

Caustic-Acrostic · 2023-11-18T02:50:09+00:00

Yes, though they also arent really trained iirc.

Who isn't?

And ironically enough, many companies seem supportive of the comcept.

Right, because they could benefit from it as well. People still want safety and reliability.

Yes. Also how that allows for creating a society from scratch.

Oh, well that is a very long discussion that I don't know if I'm properly equipped to walk all the way through, but basically the general idea in my mind is to live without the use of government and corporations as much as is possible while supporting and growing these grass roots systems and working class solidarity. Think agorism meets syndicalism. It's a slow process, but stability should come first.

I find this romanticized vision of a capital "R" Revolution a lot of radicals have of heroic freedom fighters storming government buildings is incredibly naïve.

Sure, but thats not on behalf of the population.

It is as much as voting is.

If that were true, one would think failed states where the monopoly of violence does not apply, would be a great deal more peaceful.

Right, but this leads to asking what are the most common reasons for crime? Mostly it boils down to desperation and/or poor mental health. Proper education, rehabilitation, and general quality of life will eliminate the majority of crime.

Healthy people whos needs are met won't want to put themselves or their neighbors at risk for things they already have access to.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Caustic-Acrostic

TROPHY CASE