RE: Is long-term solitary confinement torture?
January 1, 2012 at 9:45 pm
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2012 at 9:49 pm by Epimethean.)
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.
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! 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? 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? 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?
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?
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!
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?
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 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.
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! 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? 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? 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?
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?
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!
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?
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 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.
Trying to update my sig ...
