Is long-term solitary confinement torture?

[reverendjeremiah]

Rev, you are very dismissive of my questions. OK, fair enough. A few counter-questions, which you will most likely dismiss with your usual benign prejudice.

LOL...fine...I will give you up or down answers as much as possible

First of all, I did read your post. You say the worst of the criminals will go to-hey, presto, a managed care facility! OK, super!

Brilliant!

Now, who comprises that worst of the worst, and what do they have to do to earn that spot? Murder? No, because not all murderers are pyschos, right? Murder in a psychopathic way?

So many questions. I would say Rapists and murderers go to the sanitarium. Those murderers may be psychos.

OK, so now those ones are institutionalized on the taxpayers' dollar, as would be the serial rapists, right? But aren't you an anarchist, and isn't this very much not an anarchistic agenda?

There MIGHT be taxpayer dollars. It could be a commune. It might be (and more than likely will be) both.
Anarchists = "without authority"
That does not mean "without order"
That does not mean "without government"
So this would not go against anarchist ideals. those who are educated in psychiatrics and other mental studies will be the ones who will take care of the situation. Those who are tough and gentle enough to be orderlies will do so. It will fall into place, and if it doesnt then apprently not enough people cared for it to be such a way anyhow, so why should it exist.

Something like this WILL exist...but how far are you willing to let them encroach into your freedom?

Beyond these, what of the ones who have simply been in gangs their whole lives, and who, although not insane, know no other way but the way of tooth and claw? How do you keep your free citizens safe from the likes of these as they set up shop?

People change...and when i say that, I dont mean all people change all the time. I mean that people can change. that is why you dont throw them into a cage and treat them like an animal. That is why you treat them like humans REGARDLESS of the past. If we condone violence in the present for violence in the past, then we also condon violence in the present for violence that we thing may occur in the future.
Sure..its idealistic in some concepts, but it is very scientific and humanitarian in others.
Simple theives and "punchy" types get booted out of the local community. Some permanent. Some for as long as people are mad at you. If the other communities dont like you, then they deal with you however they run (which may be banishment or maybe even jail, as not all Anarcho communities will be communal. Some may very well be caitalistic. Some neighborhs might not be Anarchal at all. Some may be totalitarian, to which banishment might become a death sentence.

Remember, this is REAL life we are talking about.

When didn't I know the definition of anarchy? I made a typo in which I must have stuck absurdism (which really is nonsense, anyway, but I know, I know, you love it) together with authoritarianism. However, I do not think I have got anarchy wrong here-not really, or you wouldn't be sidestepping here. So, would you care to answer my original question there? What does anarchy offer as a static pattern of government? How can it remain anarchistic without coming to be at odds with those who practice it when they want something to stick? Why would families or (legitimate) business want to set up in an anarchist commune?

Because you still keep equating it to other things. I just had to correct you again in this post. It wasnt just the typo. I do love nonsense for the most part. I have a love hate relationship with Christianity, which is solely responsible for my Reverend Jeremiah character (Sweet Baby Jesus Praise His Name!!! GAH-LORY!!!). You are close on Anarchy..but ever so far. You keep asuming things into it which simply are not true, nor necessarily imply a shared property with the basic definition. Anarchy can be accompanied by either law or lawlessness. So, as far as a "static" pattern of government I would say that anarchy in and of itself has none. Most traditional anarchies were communal, but I will not argue that point very hard, as good evidence can be drawn up of other anarchal societies that were not communal. Many anarcho communities have many different rules they have made. I stick to the Majority/mandate system myself. Majority vote rules for very simple subjects. Mandate vote for major, life altering subjects. Majority is 51% or more. Mandate is 66% or more. Businesses would LOVE to set up business for many different reasons (which I have discussed before). If they want to buy land in a commune it isnt going to happen.

The information in the book you cite is over sixteen years old. Does Losse still live there today? Also, aside from three vestigial "Great book, man!" bits on the inside of the epub text (it is only available in that format, right?), I could not find any substantial reviews for the book, though I did find the first two chapters, which were written in, shall we say, a rather "whoa, dude, awesome adjective and adverb" fashion? Did you read the whole thing? Awesome accomplishment, dude!

Yeah dude! Its a great book dude!

I guess quoting from the book to you is out of the question then?

Your bait and switch on the drugs vs sex issue is not effective. Return to the question asked. If you want to have a discussion about teen sex and its effects, let's do that somewhere where it is pertinent. Christiania has a demonstrable drug problem. Can we discuss that, or do you want to keep batting away the questions dismissively-even after lecturing me on authoritarianism?

I wasnt trying to bait and switch. I was bringing up an analogy.

Fine, I will confront it head on if you prefer. Do i want kids 14 and smoking pot. The answer:
If it is my kid? No.
If it is someone elses kid? It isnt none of my fucking business.
Should ANY of these kids be thrown into jail for it? FUCK NO!
I will not use my children to remove your freedoms.
Is that clear enough for you?

Now, after suggesting that my admittedly incomplete list of reforms is not enough, you simply go on to rant about government and education as being evil. How about finding a better way to respond? Can you? So, you're an anarchist sometimes, but not always, as you do not mind rules such as those governing violence and theft. Well, my fair-weather anarchist friend, Christiania seems to have problems with both of those, primarily because of its lack of regulations regarding drugs. How will you address the violence and theft when gangs run the drug scene and protect their trade violently, oftimes necessitating police raids at the cost of those who do not live in Christiania, and when major addicts, with no funds or contributory skills to subsidize their habits do as addicts are wont to do: Steal to pay?

I dont say education is evil, nor is government innately evil. Minding rules does not mean someone is not an anarchist. Yet one more reason why you do not understand anarchy.

Do you think anarchy is chaos in the streets..a mob fucking shit up all the time all day? If you think that way then you are wrong. That is not Anarchy. Sure, some anarchists might be in that mob, along with conservatives and liberals and everyone else. Mob =/= anarchy any more than Democrat does not equal mob OR anarchist. I dispise theft. Christiania has rules against theft. You will be banished for it. They are HARD on crime. Violence is against the rules, you will be BANSHED for it. No drunk tank. You are booted from the commune! They are TOUGH on crime. The citizens police themselves and agree to the rules or get booted the fuck out. If violence happens in the street then it fucking happens in the streets regardless of the existence of cops or not.

I would quote some lines from the book, but since you pishawed it I cant even use a diary of someone who actually lived in an anarcho-commune as evidence.

I guess you will...whatever...I guess my words dont even matter anymore.

I understand that you may not care about those youths and the possibility of their coming to harm at the hands of gangs or addicts, and that you see no connection between refusing to legally supervise their use of drugs to minimize addiction, brain damage, disease, etc, but what of the issues above? Would you respond in a non-dismissive, non-hostile fashion and actually attempt to answer the questions? Thank you.

Gangs exist regardless of laws and governments. I am opposed to putting chains on kids and putting them in cages...and that is your answer.