People Behave Socially and 'Well' Even Without Rules

[Autumnlicious]

I was merely pointing out ONE way that some anarchal systems would work. Some anarcho societies may not be so lenient. Some may have other methods of dealing with disruptive people. Its all about the majority consensus of the community.

Ah, the much vaunted majority consensus. As I recall, prior to 1865, majorities in quite a few areas held that the color of your skin means you can be owned...

Just beating the shit out of the theif is not going to make the community happy. If the theif steals from you, then starts violence to keep the object (which is what you are describing) then you are a victim of theivery and violence. Why would the community kick you out for defending your personal things or your own health? a community like that would not last long would it?

Maybe, maybe not. Primitive societies can keep remarkably stable while practicing cultural practices and laws of dubious intent. It only follows that any society can maintain itself as long as the growth rate is greater than or equal to death rate.

And what if your group has many members of one family where they can use intimidation to prevent you from successfully protecting your property.

But hey, you're not going to leave, right? It's been your home since forever, you have friends, etc, etc,.

Jesus, the double think you've got here is astounding -- what makes you think you can solve problems that have plagued every societal implementation from day one? Anarchism, syndicalism, etc,. They're just as fanciful as Ron Paul's ideal world.

In the end run, as with any group of primates, you'll get clan/family-based loyalties, and thus a concentration of power. With the power and ability to form alliances comes ruling over others, in some sense. And then we're right back in a form of archy, a rule.

Doesn't matter if it's kings, the family matriarch or some mythical dude named Jesus, you're not going to find anarchy anywhere because inevitably, someone successfully reasserts control and begins to exercise their strength.

Anarchism isnt rocket science. Its very common sense and simple. Who wants to live in a violent community of theives willingly?

People who believe in violence and rule of the strong?

Please, tell me with a straight face those societies/groups never form...

It depends on the situation. If the theif has a knife and the victim breaks the theifs arm getting the knife back, then WHY would the community kick him out? Now the theif gets kicked out of the community with a broke arm because it will be doubtful that anyone would help such an asshole. If the victim takes the knife from the thief and kills him with it, well, what do you think the community will react? They wont be none too happy that he killed someone would they? It really depends on what anarcho system is in effect at the time. In an anarcho capitalist system they would leave the killer alone as he was protecting his property and property is king in anarchocapitalist societies. If he was in a syndicate or social anarchy the reaction might be quite different. The community may come together and discuss the situation, come to the conclusion that the victim of theft went too far in taking a life and ask the man to leave.

So in other words, there is no standard for justice but the fickle beliefs of your community-mates?

What if they community decides it's a good time to lynch some negros?

The theif might definitely be starving in an anarcho-capitalist society. In a society like that the concepts of "rich" and "poor" are ingrained into the system. I dont like anarcho-capitalism because I consider it cruel. In an anarcho syndicalist system everyone has work.

That makes no sense -- everyone has work? What if no further work can be done due to material limitations (until a totally unrelated discipline figures a way out)? Then no one, or much fewer, has work.

What if 'work' is defined by mining coal? What if all the coal is mined? What then? No more work.

Even if there are too many people working on something, you are still expected to work (there is always something to do to build up the community).

So instead you defer either to the masses to decide what is valuable (really? Really?) or a select group of individuals, of where tyranny can reign.

That's what capitalism got right -- it reduces down opinion to a common denominator -- demand/supply.

Show me something that sidesteps the "tyranny (or ignorance) of the masses" problem?

Everyone makes the same amount of money and everyone has a home.

So it is not equal work for equal pay?

If the theif was starving in a syndicate, chances are the entire community AND the victim were also starving as well. If everyone is equal, why would theivery happen on a common basis?

BECAUSE YOU ONLY LIVE IN YOUR HEAD AND WANT TO SURVIVE, you thick headed dunce!

Famines are the biggest time for robbery, because the stakes are "live" or "die"!

Wow!

Why would someone steal food from his neighbor when he has the same? Also, in a syndicate, the community is encouraged to patrol itself. How long do you think a starving person would go unnoticed and unhelped in a community such as this? Give the man a sandwich and ask him to help you pick strawberries for the good of the community.

And what if the community simply does not have enough food, spread out, to support everyone? It might even be that combining yours+someone else's food keeps you alive for another day.

But hey, it can't happen, right? It won't happen, right?

And people will use critical thinking and not their emotions during a time of incredible stress, right?

In spain the anarcho-syndicate known as FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) took over a ritzy rich hotel. Before the revolution the poor were barely fed. When the anarchists rose up they told the rich they are no longer rich. They are just the same as everyone else and if they dont like it then get the fuck out. Anyways, they took over the hotel and converted it into a peoples kitchen. Food was free for anyone who was hungry. Im not talking crap food either, or some kind of soup kitchen. People were encouraged to help the community, but not required. Pick up trash from the streets. If you are an electrician we have a short over here in the kitchen, etc, etc..

Gee, that sounds remarkably self-sustaining. I guess we can look up FAI and find something to inspect today.

...

...

Nope, haven't found anything.

Still, those anarchists really got the right idea? So we should see more of this in Spain, right?

...

...

...

Damn this is hard!

Might as well accuse me of disregarding the Code of Hammurabi for all I care. anarchists are not traditionalists. What matters is the here and now. What matters is people today.

You're a fucking idiot if you think the Code of Hammarubi and modern day English Law/Napoleonic Law are comparable. For one thing, the Code was simply an assignment of act to punishment-style text.

Modern Law includes:
- criteria for judgement, guilt and burden of proof
- clear and established protocols
- precedents/focus on historical context
- methods for appealing against a judgement

And that is the most generalist, brain dead approximation I can think of!

But, hurr-durr, we might as well call a bird a gecko for all I care.

You made that quite clear in your last post. I know... its stupid.

Permit me to illustrate the depth of my regard.