The interesting history they don't teach in schools

[Minimalist]

I'll take my chances with the dems for now.  They are less obvious about sticking their dicks up people's assholes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23...34922.html

Senate Republicans Remove 'Civil Rights And Human Rights' From Subcommittee Name

They wouldn't want to give their fat cat donors  the wrong idea now, would they?

[Cato]

I'm not saying employee ownership is appropriate in all circumstances. I still think incentives are important, and I think in new tech start ups or innovation intensive companies, employee ownership may be inappropriate. Nonetheless, I think your objections really amount to an over generalization. How will disputes be handled, law enforcement, etc.? Well, how are they handled today? We imprison more people than every other nation on earth, and we have higher violent crime rates than most of our western counterparts. So let's begin by admitting that we don't do such a great job at this stuff. In Scandinavia, where they use restorative justice, they're actually closing prisons down. Not needed anymore. 

So yeah, I reject your very reactionary slippery slope, OMG it's gonna be like that movie where all the police went away and chaos ensued (reminds of one of Bill Maher's hysterical fits of panic at the thought of anarchy and chaos, like that time he thought banning plastic might be a great idea, in reaction to that guy who printed a gun using a 3D printer)

And this how they keep their hooks in us, by prompting us to think in such absurd ways. Like your implicit assumption that any transition to a new system must involve the abrupt dismantling of the state and police forces, leaving us at the mercy of violent criminals. That's just ridiculous. There are many many ways we can transition towards a non-authoritarian society, and do so in a very smooth way. 

Are you going to tell me how dispute resolutions work in your proposed system or not? You bypassed this and jumped to enforcement of dispute resolution outcomes arguing against claims that have not been made. Try again.

[nihilistcat]

I'm not saying employee ownership is appropriate in all circumstances. I still think incentives are important, and I think in new tech start ups or innovation intensive companies, employee ownership may be inappropriate. Nonetheless, I think your objections really amount to an over generalization. How will disputes be handled, law enforcement, etc.? Well, how are they handled today? We imprison more people than every other nation on earth, and we have higher violent crime rates than most of our western counterparts. So let's begin by admitting that we don't do such a great job at this stuff. In Scandinavia, where they use restorative justice, they're actually closing prisons down. Not needed anymore. 

So yeah, I reject your very reactionary slippery slope, OMG it's gonna be like that movie where all the police went away and chaos ensued (reminds of one of Bill Maher's hysterical fits of panic at the thought of anarchy and chaos, like that time he thought banning plastic might be a great idea, in reaction to that guy who printed a gun using a 3D printer)

And this how they keep their hooks in us, by prompting us to think in such absurd ways. Like your implicit assumption that any transition to a new system must involve the abrupt dismantling of the state and police forces, leaving us at the mercy of violent criminals. That's just ridiculous. There are many many ways we can transition towards a non-authoritarian society, and do so in a very smooth way. 

Are you going to tell me how dispute resolutions work in your proposed system or not? You bypassed this and jumped to enforcement of dispute resolution outcomes arguing against claims that have not been made. Try again.

That's your mistake, it's not "my" system. I don't make absurd claims like I can paint a schematic of a magical new society. No, but what I did provide is a number of non-authoritarian or less authoritarian alternatives, and you just knee jerked to dispute resolution. 

But okay, dispute resolution. Restorative justice, look it up, there's tons of material out there (the Google genie will enlighten you on how we can do a better job of resolving disputes).

I'll even help you, here's a wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

Also, you might want to look up alternative dispute resolution. So we already have plenty of alternatives to the state. Private parties, communities, etc., can in fact resolve their own disputes. Amazing right, who would have thought anyone could even exist without an Uncle Sam sugar daddy

[Minimalist]

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender.

In other words, Dead On Arrival in 'Murrica!

[nihilistcat]

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender.

In other words, Dead On Arrival in 'Murrica!

Exactly!

[Minimalist]

Okay.  Now that we've established that you just earned a rep point!

[bennyboy]

+1 rep from me as well. I'm still waiting to see how anarchy would work on say a national scale. But it's an interesting thread.

[Cato]

That's your mistake, it's not "my" system. I don't make absurd claims like I can paint a schematic of a magical new society. No, but what I did provide is a number of non-authoritarian or less authoritarian alternatives, and you just knee jerked to dispute resolution. 

But okay, dispute resolution. Restorative justice, look it up, there's tons of material out there (the Google genie will enlighten you on how we can do a better job of resolving disputes).

I'll even help you, here's a wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

Also, you might want to look up alternative dispute resolution. So we already have plenty of alternatives to the state. Private parties, communities, etc., can in fact resolve their own disputes. Amazing right, who would have thought anyone could even exist without an Uncle Sam sugar daddy

First, when I say 'your system' I am indicating that you are proposing an anarchist system of government and am in no way implying that you personally conjured up a unique take on the idea. I also did not 'knee jerk' to dispute resolution. I was quite clear that this is a flaw in all proposed anarchist systems because it is something that is never adequately addressed. Your doing a fine job of supporting my claim.

I happen to agree with the idea of restorative justice, but it is not a form of dispute resolution. Restorative justice deals with restitution for a wrong committed, not determining fault or liability in a dispute.

You then wave your hands at alternative dispute resolutions which I am intimately familiar with in my profession. Care to share your ideas of what happens when these don't work? I don't understand your expectation that alternative/informal forms of dispute resolution will work if we remove the state judiciary when they frequently don't work resulting in complaintants seeking redress in court.

Now, let's try again. Knowing that informal/alternative forms of dispute resolution don't always result in consensus or agreement, what takes the place of the judicial system in an anarchist system?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So we already have plenty of alternatives to the state. Private parties, communities, etc., can in fact resolve their own disputes. Amazing right, who would have thought anyone could even exist without an Uncle Sam sugar daddy

Do you have any historical examples, on a national level? 

[Minimalist]

The Confederate States of America?