Is long-term solitary confinement torture?

[Epimethean]

Rev, I did some looking into Christiania. It is not a dreamland, you are right, but it has major problems with organized crime, particularly with regard to drug trafficking. Not all drugs are legal there and the white supremacists seem to have taken both marijuana and hash sales by the throat-with violence toward anyone who is either a competitor or a detractor.

I wouldn't say it is "going strong." It has had many battles with authorities, especially as a haven for criminals, and since it doesn't have any effective means to combat crime, it seems to contain both a blessing and a curse for those who simply wish to live their lives there.

In addition, it is no prisonland. It was founded by hippies and squatters, not supermax criminals whose population contains rapists and murderers. Suggesting that an anarchist state would work for such people would merely promote might makes right until enough people had been hurt that the rapists and murderers were either killed themselves or incarcerated again (or perhaps exported, an then what, if they couldn't manage their own trespassers?). I'm not sure that your contention that violent criminals could be located in such a spot and remain there peacefully. 900 hippies in one place doesn't seem to be an adequate basis for a replicable system of self-government, especially by convicts.

Given the community's start as a children's playground, one of the saddest things I see in Christiania is a beautifully handcrafted wooden children's playground, painted in rainbow colours that sits empty and unused. There are no kids to be seen, just a dozen drunks and drug addicts crouched along the walls in front of it.

And perhaps even more tragic is the amount of drugs that are openly sold to kids in Freetown. Throughout the day I see handfuls of kids biking in, no more than 14 years old, buying weed from the dealers. It's a sad failure of both Freetown and the Danish authorities to address the problem that clearly exists here.

http://travel.ninemsn.com.au/holidaytype...e-of-decay

When talking to the residents of Christiania who’ve lived in the neighborhood for more than 15 years, you get a sense that some of the original ideals are being lost with a new generation more interested in drugs than community. Much of the dealing has been taken over by organized crime and subsequently the Danish government has taken notice. Drug raids are common and many government officials of late have based part of their campaigns on promises of ending Christiania’s loosely defined status.

http://foxnomad.com/2010/03/10/a-look-in...ristiania/

Christiania is independent to an extent, but cannot exist without the supplies, electricity, nor police protection of the big brother that surrounds it. So, while the community may be able to police itself, it hasn’t been able to control the invasive external elements that have moved in to take advantage of its semi-independence.

http://foxnomad.com/2011/10/28/optimisti...the-world/

Christiania is Copenhagen’s most popular tourist attraction apart from Tivoli. However, be advised that possession of marihuana etc. is illegal, and that the neighbourhood drug sales are mainly run by organised criminal gangs, not the locals.

http://www.science.ku.dk/phd/applying/living/

Really, anarchy doesn't lend itself to stable society and so, governments coalesce, as is seen to be happening even in Christiania. I understand that you find much merit in anarchist movements, but all they can really be is interstices between forms of government. I rather like this take on the subject:

http://critical-thinker.net/?p=440

[Faith No More]

This thread makes me want to watch 'No Escape.'

[reverendjeremiah]

P.S. - this post steers me back towards the original topic at the end. Sure, we are having fun with the anarchy thing...but this thread is solitary confinement and jails and stuff.

Epi..dont get me wrong...I enjoy our heated discussions. Please dont think I hate you. In fact I look forward to what you post next.

So we arent asking for certificates now? Fine.. Im glad you eased off.

A question for you, Rev: How would you preserve the safety of such beings in a prisonland setting?

I have never ONCE spoke of a "prison land". Others have. I have not. The closest thing I have spoken of imprisoning someone is putting the worst clinical offenders in a high security sanatarium with professional help. I have no problem putting rapists and serial killers in this system to study.

I have, on the other hand, spoken of "banishment". Banishment doesnt mean "prison land". Banishment means "get the fuck out of our community and do not come back!"

Rev, I did some looking into Christiania. It is not a dreamland, you are right, but it has major problems with organized crime, particularly with regard to drug trafficking. Not all drugs are legal there and the white supremacists seem to have taken both marijuana and hash sales by the throat-with violence toward anyone who is either a competitor or a detractor.

Where I grew up had major problems with organized crime in my neighborhood as well. They had shit loads of cops, red tape, government officials, prisons, etc...etc... yet they still had a problem just as much as Christiania had in certain times. If you are using organized crime as a failure of a system, then I conclude that every single government model has failed based from your logic.
I am reading a book on someone who lived in Christiania, and he paints a much different picture than you paint...and he at first didnt want to stay there.

They used to have all drugs legal there until the surrounding government decided to mop their heroin addicts into the Christiania community. In other words, a government that claims to have all the answers had to mop its shit into an anarcho neighbor. This is a "win win" choice for the government of Denmark
#1 - Denmark has less Heroin addicts, which makes the govt seem like they are doing a great job
#2 - Denmark can now point an extra finger at the hated anarchists by claiming they have so many heroin addicts and addicts dying in their streets, and that Christiania should be shut down.
Now I have no problem with banishing people like that from a community, but this communities beuracracy targeted a specific neighbor to send their trash into. Kicking them out is fine. Sending them to a perceived enemy is an attack.
As far as the drug trade, they are the anarcho-capitalists. They act different ways to different people. Visitors are treated as suspect, residents are treated better. I personally do not care much for the capitalist element in Christiania, but they do. And I will also point out that elements like that exist in government societies as well. The only difference is that in Christiania they can stand out more in the open.

I wouldn't say it is "going strong." It has had many battles with authorities, especially as a haven for criminals, and since it doesn't have any effective means to combat crime, it seems to contain both a blessing and a curse for those who simply wish to live their lives there.

ITS AN ANARCHAL SOCIETY! Its going to have criminal elements.

Governmental societies have criminal elements as well, all of them stretching all the way up to their supreme leader.
rape exists with and without a government
Greed exists with and without a government
hatred exists with and without a government
racism exists with and without a government
Man, I can keep going and going on this list. Your government has this problem just as bad as Christiania.

Now...how about pointing out what you DONT see. Because what you DONT see is what is important, and not immediately noticeable to those who close their minds to such things...you do not see:
corporations fucking their community over
Governments taxing people to death
Governments telling you what religion to believe
Government telling you how to live your life
Government telling you what is right and wrong
Lobyists
segregation
corrupt stock markets
people getting kicked out for not paying rent
governments supressing open and free comerce
rich bastards hogging land and natural materials
governments telling you that you must use the official currency
no cops - the people police themselves
No traffic congestion
Man, I can go on and on with that list.
to suggest that an anarcho society cannot function is the same as suggesting that atheism causes people to go out on killing sprees. It is a suggestion that people do not know how to naturally organize and live together without someone (government or god) threatening them with punishment if they dont heed authority.

In addition, it is no prisonland.

??? What does that mean..I dont understand?

It was founded by hippies and squatters, not supermax criminals whose population contains rapists and murderers. Suggesting that an anarchist state would work for such people would merely promote might makes right until enough people had been hurt that the rapists and murderers were either killed themselves or incarcerated again (or perhaps exported, an then what, if they couldn't manage their own trespassers?). I'm not sure that your contention that violent criminals could be located in such a spot and remain there peacefully. 900 hippies in one place doesn't seem to be an adequate basis for a replicable system of self-government, especially by convicts.

Super criminals, in my opinion, exist regardless of law or not. they exist regardless of government or anarchy. In fact, I am willing to argue that a government allows criminals to organize even better, and find their fingers inall of our wallets even easier.

I do not want to repeat myself. I have mentioned in older posts how I feel about this.

also, I am quite upset that you have gone the "hippy" route. You might as well argue that they all love Hitler as well. You should make up your mind. Are they all hippies? Or all white supremecists drug dealers who are violent? Stop trying to over generalize and rethink that statement you made please. If you dont like it, then just say you dont like it. regardless, please do not over generalize an anarcho system...its much more complex than you may realize.

Given the community's start as a children's playground, one of the saddest things I see in Christiania is a beautifully handcrafted wooden children's playground, painted in rainbow colours that sits empty and unused. There are no kids to be seen, just a dozen drunks and drug addicts crouched along the walls in front of it.

Sounds like the imagery of most major cities to me...so what do you suggest? Round up the drunks and throw them in jail? Force children to play there? tear the park down to keep the drunks away?

And perhaps even more tragic is the amount of drugs that are openly sold to kids in Freetown. Throughout the day I see handfuls of kids biking in, no more than 14 years old, buying weed from the dealers. It's a sad failure of both Freetown and the Danish authorities to address the problem that clearly exists here.

GASP!!! OMG!!! teenagers actually doing what they want!!! We should send in an officer to take the pot from that kid, put hi in handcuffs and put him through the system. First they can book the kids in juvenile hall and cost the parents somewhere around $500 for bail. Then we can pull the kid and his parents up before an authority figure that beats a hammer on his huge desk reminding him and his parents how bad smoking weed is, and how it is so horrible that humans deserve to be put in a cage like wild animals for it. Then we can decide to put him in a reform school. Thats it. We can take him from his parents and lock him up in a school where we can teach him how horrible marijuanna is.

That would fix everything.

[Epimethean]

So, Rev, according to your plan, we banish the really bad ones and ... they go ... where? I can tell you where they would end up: Places like Christiania, where there is no police to effect the banishment. They certainly won't go to well-regulated places, so even if you have not advocated for prisonland, by a sort of default, you are condoning a crime-land. That is the big problem with anarchy: It is fine to create change, but it is useless to establish safety or order, both of which are valued components of any society in which people go to live, work and raise families. Or are we suggesting that Crimelandia would only be for the intrepid souls who place no value on such quantities? If so, they are mooted fairly quickly as being unsustainable.

As regards Denmark's sending heroin addicts into Christiania, can you supply a link or two, please? I have not seen that as much as I have seen the heroin addicts arriving there due to lack of legal interference with their very self-destructive habit.

So, you suggest it is cool for kids under 14 to buy drugs when they want to? Another point at which I see anarchist thinking to fail. Sure kids get their hands on drugs. Is that ideal? No, and anyone who suggests as much has done precious little reading about the effects of long term drug use on still developing brains. Add to this the fact that adolescents and teenagers tend not to possess great wisdom or self-restraint in their explorations into drugs; so, lose the illegality, increase the potential casualties-before the kids can even become adults. Your suggesting it is and would only be weed is very naive. If you read more about Christiania, drugs is one of its major detractions for those who value its early ideals, even though they were also one of its vaunted selling points.

What do I suggest? Heavy tort reform, a massive change in who is imprisoned and for what offence, increases in the quality of education, legalization of marijuana for adults (over 18), reduction of the drinking age to 18, increased community based policing and a commensurate reduction on radar running robocops, mandatory voting after a voter education class, and probably a dozen other things which would be mild according to the anarchist's civil cookbook.

Prisonlands? Christianias perforce? Banishments without some way of tracking patterns of migration? No, or at least not as we have described them yet.

[reverendjeremiah]

So, Rev, according to your plan, we banish the really bad ones and ... they go ... where?

You still arent reading my posts. The really bad ones go to a psychiatric sanitarium.

I can tell you where they would end up: Places like Christiania, where there is no police to effect the banishment.

..and the people that Christiania kicks out winds up in downtown Denmark. Whats your point? And if you think there are no police in Christiania...yup...you have made the most common mistake about an anarcho society "They are easy pickings because I dont see any cops". Thats right man, just keep on thinking that. Christiania's mothers ran the Hells Angels out of town, and buried their leader under the floors of the local pub. Sure...go ahead and try to fuck with them.

They certainly won't go to well-regulated places, so even if you have not advocated for prisonland, by a sort of default, you are condoning a crime-land.

Right..because gangs dont exist in areas with laws and police and politicians. Organized crime only exists in areas like Christiania.

That is the big problem with anarchy: It is fine to create change, but it is useless to establish safety or order, both of which are valued components of any society in which people go to live, work and raise families.

This coming from the person who didnt even know the correct definition of "anarchy" not just a few posts ago....sure...what else do you know about it? Epi said anarchy is useless. Well then, that settles it. Epi said you cant work or raise families in an anarchy. Well, I guess that settles it then...

What else do I need to know Epi? How would you tell me to live my life?

Or are we suggesting that Crimelandia would only be for the intrepid souls who place no value on such quantities? If so, they are mooted fairly quickly as being unsustainable.

If Christiania makes you piss your pants, then so be it. Not everyone has the guts to live a true life of freedom.

As regards Denmark's sending heroin addicts into Christiania, can you supply a link or two, please? I have not seen that as much as I have seen the heroin addicts arriving there due to lack of legal interference with their very self-destructive habit.

Here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/Freetown-Christian...24&sr=8-13

Have at it.. I hope you enjoy. So far it has been a 4 out of 5 star book.

So, you suggest it is cool for kids under 14 to buy drugs when they want to? Another point at which I see anarchist thinking to fail.

Yes, because if kids to shit like that, they deserve to be put in chains and cage like wild beasts. They deserve to be taken from their mothers and forced into a new family against their will or be threatened with loss of freedom and chains around their ankles and wrists...

...but I am the bad guy because I say "that is bullshit!"

Sure kids get their hands on drugs. Is that ideal?

Who the fuck am I to decide what is ideal for you, or anyone else for that matter?

An Example that has NOTHING to do with you: Do I think it is Ideal for racists to be denied access on the Internet?

Fuck no.

Do i think capitalism is Ideal?

Fuck no.

Can I put those people in chains and in a cage as well based on my ideals?

No, and anyone who suggests as much has done precious little reading about the effects of long term drug use on still developing brains.

thats what education is about...I guess it is my fault that their brains are fucked up now? Right? I should go and slap hand cuffs on them kids for wanting to smoke a joint.

How about underage sex? Why be so lenient? Your willing to throw a 12 year old in a cage for smoking a joint...what will you do to a 12 year old caught having sex?

Add to this the fact that adolescents and teenagers tend not to possess great wisdom or self-restraint in their explorations into drugs; so, lose the illegality, increase the potential casualties-before the kids can even become adults.

All the reasons why you should through the 12 year kid in jail. He isnt wise enough to create life. He can cause more damage than any single joint ever could. He could get a 13 year old pregnant.

So obviously you should want to come down on the sex much harder than the dope...right?

So where should we lock up the pregnant teenagers? I say a special school for pregnant teenagers. Thats a good start. Then we can put the fathers into reform school. Be sure to keep a close eye on them.

Right?

What do I suggest? Heavy tort reform, a massive change in who is imprisoned and for what offence, increases in the quality of education, legalization of marijuana for adults (over 18), reduction of the drinking age to 18, increased community based policing and a commensurate reduction on radar running robocops, mandatory voting after a voter education class, and probably a dozen other things which would be mild according to the anarchist's civil cookbook.

Your heart is kind of going in the right direction. It's not enough.

Just because I am an anarchist, does not mean I dispise order. No. I have no problems with certain laws. Certain laws make very basic sense. Like; no violence, no theft, . They make sense and quite frankly SHOULD NOT require a special police unit to enforce it.

I blame the education for this...I blame the lack of communal skills that modern governments are responsible for. They WANT us at out throats.

---

Please dont get me wrong..I want it to go there peacefully...it is prefered (at least in my opinion)

I would even willing to go slow with some of the changes. Lets legalize marijuana based drugs first. Lets have some fair representation in society, not just the ones who have millions of dollars.

People are going to damn well do what they want regardless of law

[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.

[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.

[Epimethean]

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.

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?

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

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

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/

As an anarchist, do you find that Ayn Rand's thoughts speak strongly to you? 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 liked this essay on the potential incompatibility between anarchy and discordianism:

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

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

[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.

[Epimethean]

OK, then, Rev. Have a good time. It is clear that mockery is your purview alone, and that I was wrong in attempting to try to use it to make points in an attempt to match your mode of communication.

Cheers.