4 ms·

I mean, do you like that those people get off now if they’re powerful? Or if a cop decides to do that either nothing happens or they get let go with a million d

I mean, do you like that those people get off now if they’re powerful? Or if a cop decides to do that either nothing happens or they get let go with a million dollar pension? At least in a flat society you’d have an equal say to advocate for w/e you thought is just. Personally for me, and many others who lean left, prison or death doesn’t sit right because it doesn’t address the root of the problem and it’s often used to quash dissent. This is perhaps what you find unsatisfying but if you were magically placed into an anarchist community you’d have more ability to advocate for what you thought was fair.

bbarnett 6y ago
Holy whataboutism! With no laws, no police, no jails, no courts, and no justice system, everyone on of those incredibly evil people mention in the prior comment goes 100% free to continue their reign of terror. Yet, of course, that's exactly the same as some people who slip through the cracks of a justice system that catches many such people a year. Prosecutes them with attempts to be fair. Puts them in jail so they can't hurt others. Yup. Because someone might slip through the cracks, well.. that's precisely the same as what the prior poster said! What a false equivalency.
- marricks 6y ago
  I mean sure in a society where no one holds anyone accountable that would happen. That’s not what anyone is actually advocating for.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    You cannot just give people stern looks. The end result is, you need to be able to use violence, against those willing to use it against you. Note, that can be a last step, but without it? Those who care not about stern looks, "talking tos", or cold shoulders will literally take everything you have, and kill everyone. So now you fall to mob rule, lynchings, and what? Power of the strong man? As soon as you organize, to provide for a response to organized thugs/criminals/rapists/murderers, you now have a government. That's how governments came into creation ; shared defense. And you need that 24x7. And the people doing it for the community need to be paid. And you need a way to judge, and sentence, and on and on and on. You cannot simply wave this away.
    - bena 6y ago
      Thank you. Government is the logical conclusion of anarchy. The minute you have two people who want to do something together, you need rules.
      - natmaka 6y ago
        Why can't they establish their cooperation rules between them, using existing static material (contract templates...) if they want to, without any third-party (for example a government) being mandatory?
        bena 6y ago
        First, who enforces the contract? Second, it doesn't really matter. Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination.
        natmaka 6y ago
        > who enforces the contract? In any healthy small community everyone tries to, in order to keep a good reputation. In case of misunderstanding any third party appreciated by both parties may act as a judge/referee. The need for a government, especially central, only arises when the group isn't anymore a community but a large set of (on average) loosely related and interacting persons. > Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination Coordination nor politics doesn't imply any government.
        bufferoverflow 6y ago
        And thus you invented government. As soon as you have an independent third party deciding who is right, that's your judicial branch. And then you will need the police to enforce the decisions of that judge/referee. And then when you start having insane judges who rule that raping a child is perfectly fine, you will want to stop it, and thus you will invent your standardized laws.
bufferoverflow 6y ago
Who are these people who we have evidence for such crimes and are let go? Just don't pretend like killings of career criminals resisting arrest (like George Floyd) is what we're talking about.

bbarnett 6y ago

Holy whataboutism! With no laws, no police, no jails, no courts, and no justice system, everyone on of those incredibly evil people mention in the prior comment goes 100% free to continue their reign of terror. Yet, of course, that's exactly the same as some people who slip through the cracks of a justice system that catches many such people a year. Prosecutes them with attempts to be fair. Puts them in jail so they can't hurt others. Yup. Because someone might slip through the cracks, well.. that's precisely the same as what the prior poster said! What a false equivalency.

marricks 6y ago
I mean sure in a society where no one holds anyone accountable that would happen. That’s not what anyone is actually advocating for.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  You cannot just give people stern looks. The end result is, you need to be able to use violence, against those willing to use it against you. Note, that can be a last step, but without it? Those who care not about stern looks, "talking tos", or cold shoulders will literally take everything you have, and kill everyone. So now you fall to mob rule, lynchings, and what? Power of the strong man? As soon as you organize, to provide for a response to organized thugs/criminals/rapists/murderers, you now have a government. That's how governments came into creation ; shared defense. And you need that 24x7. And the people doing it for the community need to be paid. And you need a way to judge, and sentence, and on and on and on. You cannot simply wave this away.
  - bena 6y ago
    Thank you. Government is the logical conclusion of anarchy. The minute you have two people who want to do something together, you need rules.
    - natmaka 6y ago
      Why can't they establish their cooperation rules between them, using existing static material (contract templates...) if they want to, without any third-party (for example a government) being mandatory?
      - bena 6y ago
        First, who enforces the contract? Second, it doesn't really matter. Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination.
        natmaka 6y ago
        > who enforces the contract? In any healthy small community everyone tries to, in order to keep a good reputation. In case of misunderstanding any third party appreciated by both parties may act as a judge/referee. The need for a government, especially central, only arises when the group isn't anymore a community but a large set of (on average) loosely related and interacting persons. > Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination Coordination nor politics doesn't imply any government.
        bufferoverflow 6y ago
        And thus you invented government. As soon as you have an independent third party deciding who is right, that's your judicial branch. And then you will need the police to enforce the decisions of that judge/referee. And then when you start having insane judges who rule that raping a child is perfectly fine, you will want to stop it, and thus you will invent your standardized laws.

bufferoverflow 6y ago

Who are these people who we have evidence for such crimes and are let go? Just don't pretend like killings of career criminals resisting arrest (like George Floyd) is what we're talking about.