(April 22, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(April 20, 2015 at 6:38 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: I'll even help you, here's a wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

Or, a wiki on somewhat firmer citation basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative...ocial_work

Wikipedia is a very fast way to get basic information albeit with doubts about the reliability of what you find there. Restorative justice emphasizes fines, community service, payment of restitution, and apologies made to victims at arranged meetings. We already do that to some extent here in the USA. Yet when trying to explain why crime and incarceration rates are lower in Sweden than in the USA, one should ask what else differs between the two countries besides the structure of their respective justice systems. Sweden, for instance, has a more racially and ethnically homogeneous population than the U.S. does. It doesn't have large disparities in quality between one public school and another. There are few widespread cultures of disaffection analogous to America's Hip-Hop to teach youngsters to reject the legitimacy of their broader social order in Sweden. Because of extensive housing, health, and child care subsidies, people in low-income occupations can make ends meet with somewhat fewer hours of work needed and much less financial stress than in the USA.

In short, although I think we could get mileage simply by shortening some of our draconian sentences and de-criminalizing consumer-level drug violations without loss of crime deterrence, transforming ourselves into a Nordic country may prove quite a challenge.

(April 20, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Cato Wrote: What about unsavory services, like emptying your shit from a septic tank? ... Extend this to all sorts of goods and services and you quickly revert to some sort of subsistence existence.

Which is what we had during the long era when anarchism actually worked. We lived all of prehistory in bands or small tribes that were essentially self-governing without rulers. But like other posters here I have a hard time imagining you can run a complex civilization without hierarchy.

But it's not a strict choice between the status quo and anarchy. We already make designations between what degree of authoritarianism is permissible and what's not in our public institutions, and so it's not a matter of police or no police, boss or no boss, jails or no jails, hierarchy or no hierarchy, etc. The point is, we should become more intentional about reducing authoritarianism in our society. And I definitely agree ... without the sort of supportive society common to Scandinavia, we can't expect the same outcomes.

Also, abrupt change is usually destabilizing, so I do support gradual change (but right now, change is moving at a snails pace or not at all, so I think we could move exponentially faster than we are today and still be moving gradually enough to avoid destabilizing disruption). 

(April 22, 2015 at 11:33 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: But it's not a strict choice between the status quo and anarchy...

True. And I don't know much about the folks on the "Circle-A" ranch. I've never seen any real proposals on how to govern from them. I don't blame 'em too much for that. Coming up with workable policy platforms is tough.

One problem is, how do you limit authoritarianism? Government is all about people with weapons telling everyone else to do stuff they don't want to do. It seems the only ways are to have potential rivals who might command armed followings as counterweights, or to have a taught tradition of pluralism and separation of powers, or both. The USA doesn't have a military dictator because no one fella controls the entire military and most military brass keep traditions of loyalty to the pres and the flag. It's fragile, though. It only takes breaking tradition once for it to come down like a white Christmas.

(April 23, 2015 at 10:11 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(April 22, 2015 at 11:33 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: But it's not a strict choice between the status quo and anarchy...

True. And I don't know much about the folks on the "Circle-A" ranch. I've never seen any real proposals on how to govern from them. I don't blame 'em too much for that. Coming up with workable policy platforms is tough.

One problem is, how do you limit authoritarianism? Government is all about people with weapons telling everyone else to do stuff they don't want to do. It seems the only ways are to have potential rivals who might command armed followings as counterweights, or to have a taught tradition of pluralism and separation of powers, or both. The USA doesn't have a military dictator because no one fella controls the entire military and most military brass keep traditions of loyalty to the pres and the flag. It's fragile, though. It only takes breaking tradition once for it to come down like a white Christmas.

In many countries, police don't carry guns, women are far more likely to serve in parliament, and the culture is much more egalitarian. We see changes all the time, some good some bad, but change is not only possible, it's inevitable. The only question is, how will we change. There's nothing inevitable about authoritarianism, no immutable law of nature that tells us its impossible to reduce authoritarianism.

(April 23, 2015 at 10:39 am)francismjenkins Wrote: In many countries, police don't carry guns, women are far more likely to serve in parliament, and the culture is much more egalitarian...There's nothing inevitable about authoritarianism, no immutable law of nature that tells us its impossible to reduce authoritarianism.

Any time someone can order someone else to do something or refrain from something, or take his stuff, or take his wife & kids, or take his life, it at least has a look and sniff of the authoritarian leather to me. Police go unarmed only in countries that restrict firearms. While Norway's 40% female parliament and Germany's new laws requiring women represent 30% of a company's management are admirable, women bosses can be authoritarian too; they often even seem that way to me sometimes, as if they're trying to prove themselves in a "man's" world: Just think of the Iron lady Margaret Thatcher.

There is a law of nature, or at least social life, involved: Not everyone will follow the program no matter what, and if you're going to have a set of rules all must live by, you'll have to enforce them. Enforcement is done by fallible people, not by moral robots who can keep their metal hands pure as they crush a live body to the ground. And if it's democracy we'll have, we'd better be prepared for fiascos such the Athenians embarked on with their Peloponnesian Wars. 

I'll agree with you that it is possible and desirable to reduce authoritarianism. Although I'm not sure how the Anarchists propose to do so. I'm aware there are numerous brands of anarchism, suggesting to me they don't know either. They've got the spirit now, especially while out of power, but politicians from electable parties will have to bake the cake.