I have a question, ok anarchy is no government, but I'll put one example, you will always have crime who is going to take care of this? You have to have prisons for some of these fellons, you can't cure them, who is going to finance this? Who is going to feed these people? I think you will always need a government, yes maybe very small and without any decision making powers but a government never the less. I put you just this example, because when I was a kid I used to live on an island that was 21 square miles, the nearest land was about 20 miles away, there was hardly any crime you could live with your doors open, yet there was this guy who would always steal, he couldn't get away with it, he had nowhere to go except to hide in the bush and he was always caught, but he was a thief he couldn't help stealing. So these kind of guys will always exist, how would an anarchy handle them?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Anarchy doesn't guarantee a Utopian society free of crime. As Gustave de Molinari. said " Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won't kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will."
So by eliminating Government you reduce the opportunity of people do criminal acts and this is Important, you reduce the scale, frequency and volume of theft and crime against society.
For instance you and your friends don't have the resources do develop a nuke and attack your neighbors, but governments can and have done that due to amount of resources they can steal and control.
Yes, but the question is, what do you do with the criminals? You have not answered that. You are just blaming government but are not providing a solution. I think the question is very clear.
Yeah I'd like an answer to that as well, good question.
I covered this a little in own of my most recent posts; essentially the individual is resstrained and given the chance to apply to other communities/areas to be released to, and if they are not accepted they can go into a non-occupied zone, out of the boarders of the anarchist territories, or get the punishment the community decides on, which could be death or simply starting at the bottom and living with no luxuries.
In "an"caps, well, you just get shot by the landowner or enslaved by their private police force :)
So a non occupied zone would be basically wildlands? away from society?
Theoretically, yes, although this could present issues with people trying to set up road-blocks and that'd result in a violation of the NAP, and likely extreme violence, but that could easily be solved by designating where the wildlands is.
It could simply be different parts that are unpopulated all around the world. If the USA flips, allow part of Alaska, a good chunk of the Dakotas, and potentially a slot somewhere on the southern boarder where it's agreed to simply let criminals do criminal things there, or for them to build their own society and potentially redeem their self as individuals, promoting other communities to accept them in again.
Essentially it's immoral to hold someone indefinitely and give them no other choice, even if they committed an awful crime, plus it wastes surplus, so offer him to other people and if nobody wants him give him the choice between the societies punishment/reform or being released into a wild-land with just some basic supplies appropriate for the climate.
Well I guess I will leave it at that, the answers certainly don't convince me.
They are handled the same way they were probably handled on that island. Bad people get kicked to the curb. And then they slowly try to redeem themselves by helping others in some way. No work, no eat. Nobody even wants to be bad, it's like a short circuit -- misplaced energy. During some emergency they may even become heroes, rescuing people, doing some act of bravery.
Don't you realize there are more Americans in jail today than there were Russians during the Gulags? Just an epidemic of bad people? In free-market anarchy there is no demand for prisons, it's a waste of resources.
No, you are wrong there is a certain percentage of people who are criminals, they will steal, kill or cheat or con because that is who they are and that's how they want to live. And you have to do something about them. Now who is going to do that if everyone is fending for himself and there is no one in charge?
I understand you believe in anarchy but you have to provide solutions for problems like these, not slogans.
I have to do nothing of the kind.
I also kick them to the curb or get a small posse together to "handle" them, it's done in a private, humane and uplifting manner every day. No need for organized armies of trained killers, or sadistic, sorrowful gulags to handle some little trouble.
People who enter my field of activity, become inclined to do good anyway. It's in their best interest. Human beings project strong mental forces, we create our own environment you know...
And, just as there are bad people who are going to rob, cheat and harm, there are vigilanties just waiting to be tasked with going after them.
Come on get real, see what I said you are full of slogans, you should come some place like Honduras, close to an anarchy, you get too pushy you can get killed, the country with the second or third highest murder rate in the world where there isn't a war, almost everybody has a weapon, yet when there is a hit on them they can do nothing because hitmen don't talk to you they just shoot. Now how are you going to fix that, by bullying? Crap, you would just leave like most foreigners have already done.
If my normal speech patterns sound like slogans, that's news to me. I didn't actually know you were in Honduras, I assumed you were right here in the United Snakes. And you might be right about leaving, that's called "voting with your feet" oops.
No, I don't like getting beat up, or worse and I'm just as likely to get reactionary as anyone when threatened. Still, when I have time to reason, I don't blame a mistreated dog for being mean and the same goes for people.
There are special social problems in Honduras that have persisted for a long, long time. Parts of Colombia have been known for la violencia in a very similar way. Breaking that culture of poverty and violence requires a change in philosophy, a transformation in beliefs, different heroes, a different 'story-line.'
However, I do believe the answer lies in the people themselves and not on an imposed, top down "Law and Order," crushing them from the outside.
See, now you are being most reasonable, I believe in the US there is a problem (we also have it here) that is everyone believes it is an us vrs them thing, it really shouldn't be like that I think everyone should just want to live his life as best as he can for himself and his family, this us v them is why I don't believe anarchism would work, people are just to self centered and eventually every society has been destroyed by pure greed, something which all of us have.
Us vs. Them is "received information." You learn it in school, you get it in the MSM, in movies, rap music, etc. Real people normally try to avoid conflict. Conflict is dangerous, expensive and counter-productive.
The purveyors of Us vs. Them is the big, overreaching hand of Govt. Government thrives on conflict and they go around fomenting it everywhere. Then they resolve it in their own best interest. They have the monopoly on the resolution of conflict even when it involves themselves.
Just as surely as people have negative traits, they have positive tendencies too. People help one another every day, even strangers and without any expectation of reward. What to speak of an emergency where people risk their lives for others, open their homes, their pocketbooks, give comfort and aid - you don't need any laws to force it out of them.
It is misinformation that people are so self centered they have to be forced to contribute to anything, it just isn't so. But yes when everyone is mandated, regulated, prohibited and taxed to within an inch of their lives and you can get sued for trying to help someone, behavior does change.
The natural state is much more faith both in Man and God. That kind of belief changes outcomes, it is innate and spontaneous. But nowadays that gets schooled out of people.
Institutional greed is infinitely worse than individual human greed which is a matter of shame and sorrow. Institutional greed gives cover to the perpetrators who can hide behind unjust laws.
Most of what we consider crime exists out of necessity and desperation. If you remove the cause of the desperation, in the case the government and the ruling class, you significantly decrease crime. That being said, there will be some crime no matter what and yours is a question I've pondered without ever reaching a clear conclusion. There really is no clear-cut answer to how it would be dealt with, as there are many varying schools of thought on it. Personally I think a return to "citizens arrests" would be best, followed by an open public forum and a vote by all who attend. As for the punishment, that would of course vary according to the crime.