Is long-term solitary confinement torture?

[reverendjeremiah]

So, if someone has a violent history, he gets to go to the asylum? Huh? Will it be called Arkham? Really, all you create with that is a softer prison. Is that what you are after, a holding tank with a different label? Who is paying for this, and how are the "patients" housed? Communally? How are they kept safe? By orderlies (erstwhily known as guards)? Is there no physical separation inside just as outside? Which leads me to the next question, regarding anarchism: How can such exist as a context for a community without government but in a capacity by means of which it might impose law? I mean, if you have government, you have authority, but if anarchy means, as you continue to point out, without authority, how does that work? You believe that people will just find their place in this society, and that everyone will do what is best for ... the community? How is that in keeping with what anarchists value? Just checking, all Platonic ideals aside.

I have explained all of this already in previous posts.

Have you bothered to stop to think about why Christiania is only 900 people? If it were massively successful and attractive, wouldn't it draw more "truly brave souls?" Where are all the anarchists, then? Living within the fabric of a more reliable society, governed, even if grudgingly, by laws, perhaps? Safely espousing this grand ideal without committing themselves to the cause?

Your question is not a legitimate question. Your question is a hidden mockery and therefore will be ignored. If you wish me to answer question, i suggest that you hold back the sarcasm, as I am holding the sarcasm back especially for you, especially for this discussion.

Remember, this is REAL life here, not just the "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail" songbook.

Yeah...umm...okay.

If anarchy is so attractive, why doesn't it take deeper roots, or evince a wider spread?

because everytime an anarchal society is started, people like you who cant even imagine such a place existing will do and say anything possible to get rid of it. The vast majority of anarchal communities were either attacked or boycotted (or both) by their surrounding neighbors. It took the combined forces of Franco, Hitler, and the boycott of France to destroy the Anarcho-syndicate of Spain in the late 30's. Anarchy was so attractive that George Orwell hiimself traveled to Spain and immediately signed up to fight in the voluntary defense force. (The millitary was completely voluntary, you came and left as you pleased). Orwell damn near lost his life for the anarcho-syndicate. He later penned a book about it: Homage to Catalonia.

I think it is a fun dream for the disaffected, but its practicality lasts as long as there is need for a shift from one paradigm to another, and inasmuch as that seems to be the case, we are all anarchists in some way, some time, but only the silly want to stay that way.

Calling it a dream and mocking it will no longer be answered. You take this serious like you want me to take your questions serious or the discussion is over.

Here's a bit of humor with regard to a recent potentially (because only anarchists get to say when they are really existing as such, right?) anarchist movement:

http://volokh.com/2011/10/21/occupier-pr...anarchism/

Link was ignored and this paragraph was ignored. When you start taking the discussion serious, and discontinue the mocking attitude is when I will rejoin the discussion.

As an anarchist, do you find that Ayn Rand's thoughts speak strongly to you?

Not even a little bit. Rand is on the opposite end of the spectrum I am on. I am an extreme leftist. I find Rand to be a greedy, self centered ego worshipping capitalist pig who would be best forgotten than praised.

I think anarchism and communism are both high minded and unrealistic for one major reason: Humans don't work well when relied upon to be better than they are for no other reason than a general societal expectation. Rand was reacting against communism by essentially creating communes of one, and I think she was every bit as unrealistic as her former oppressors in the Soviet Union.

I agree..Rand was reacting as opposed to the soviets. She decided to get as greedy as she could. In a society like that, it will not work.

Just saying "communism" doesnt work well on this thread. the communism most people bring up is "soviet". Which is ultrauthoritarian. I oppose that form of communism. I would have no problem going in strides. I would live very happily in a social democracy like some in the northern European countries. In reality there is no perfect government.

I liked this essay on the potential incompatibility between anarchy and discordianism:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11621

Yup, it was a pretty good article. Im a fan of discordianism.

By the by, you can quote from the book you found-sure. But for every singular wonderful remark, more of these sorts of reports come to light, each expressing a mingled fascination and concern with what Christiania is really about, because the town does not seem to really know any more. You'll note that this article in no way bashes Christiania, and often compliments it on what it wants to accomplish:

http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...-free-town

thanks, i will check it out.