You're viewing a single thread.
In the absence of other power structures (political, legal, religious, economic, etc) whoever has the means and willingness to do violence will exert their will over others. Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
There is a difference between Anomie and anarchy
Just because there are no leaders/rulers, doesn't mean there are no social rules or morale values.
A law doesn't keep one from doing bad stuff.
Else we wouldn't have murderers.But society must grow and develop. At the current state anarchy probably wouldn't work...
a law doesn't keep one from doing bad stuff
that's true, they need to be enforced somehow....
In anarchism, usually policing is handled rotationally, like most positions of authority.
They're enforced now but murder still happens.
That doesn't prove that not enforcing them would somehow make murder disappear, it just proves that you can't absolutely eliminate a behavior. Every action has diminishing returns.
I can remove some of the heat from an object by putting it in the fridge. I can remove more by putting it in the freezer, but that requires more energy. I can remove even more by using more and more sophisticated scientific equipment, but I can never reduce the temperature to absolute zero. That doesn't mean the soda in my fridge isn't colder than one on the counter.
Perfect results aren't obtainable except in trivial cases.
To your point though diminishing returns. When is it worth it. You've just a conceded that enforcing said laws don't actually prevent the crime. I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you're not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
Saying "enforcement never prevents any crime" is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they've incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.
If you're talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.
Yes, it's been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.
You've just a conceded that enforcing said laws don't actually prevent the crime
Except I didn't concede that? I said enforcing laws doesn't totally eliminate crime, in the same way that putting a soda in the fridge doesn't drop the temperature to 0K. Enforcing laws reduces crime.
I would say enforcement never prevents any crime
I would say you're demonstrably incorrect.
and enforcement is about punishment not prevention.
Punishment is the method of prevention. Additionally, incarceration is in part about removing law breakers from polite society so they do not continue to break laws. We quarantine the murderers so they don't keep murdering people.
So when is it worth it?
As with most things in life, we decide on a reasonable compromise. Putting a soda in the fridge is beneficial, putting it in the freezer is too much, and causes more problems than it solves. We decide these things collectively as a society, by electing representatives to draft laws. When they overstep, we elect new representatives to change the laws.
How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other?
What's abusive and unjust about trying to prevent murderers? Where's the justice for victims and their families if as a society we just say "Golly, sorry this guy killed your children, but if we punished him we'd be just as bad"? How do you recommend reducing the injustices people enact against each other?
Surely you're not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
Me personally? Of course not. But obviously some people want to do crimes. You can't build a society based on everyone behaving just like you all the time. Some people are more violent, or greedy, or deceptive. We are barely domesticated apes, jungle impulses course through us all. Some more than others. Without some mechanism to curtail that, consequences that outweigh the benefits of selfish behavior, you wind up back at might-makes-right anyway when the selfish behave selfishly with no recourse.
What if we focused on resolving systemic issues that might provide motivation to prevent crime? What if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment for that that commit crimes anyway?
Sure, you can take any idea to an extreme and shriek things like "authoritarianism!" but that means nothing.
we should do all that and have law enforcement
Unstructured societies always devolve into might makes right.
you can't prove this
Theoretically maybe, but empirically, humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning and currently not a single anarchist society exists. Why do you think everyone transformed into various kinds of nation-states eventually? Because nation-states were exceptionally good at filling that "power vacuum". To overpower nation-states, something at least comparable is needed. Transnational corporations/syndicates/unions, something like that.
https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
Also, you list syndicates as an example, which is an anarchist belief.
humanity was completely unstructured at the beginning
can you cite this?
currently not a single anarchist society exists.
that's a lie
Which ones? There are few places on Earth that are not under practical control of a formal government and legal system, and most of those places are either unpopulated or controlled by various local power brokers.
exarcheia and anabaptist sects come directly to mind, but you've just excluded them for some reason. it seems like no-true Scotsman to me.
exarcheia and anabaptist
Do those guys build their own roads, pipes for water and heat, homes, bake bread, make drugs, provide healthcare? Or do they depend on external nation-states and their economy to exist?
It seems like a pretty good reason to exclude them, considering the criticism being discuss was specifically that they would inevitably decay in to a "might makes right" situation. Communities existing in a situation where police and courts would prevent someone from taking over by force disqualifies them from disproving this hypothesis.
there simply isn't evidence of some causal mechanism by anarchist societies must decay. their hypothesis can't be proven. I didn't even know how it could be tested.
Why this mechanism has to be casual? Nation-states exist, just imagine existing state like Russia, China or America deciding to take over your anarchist society.
the hypothesis was decay, not invasion.
they could kill everyone in any society they decide to invade. this isn't an indictment of anarchism.
I'm not sure what you want exactly. Its pretty hard to prove a negative, but that does not make the inverse true.
In the context of previous message I meant anarchist society comparable to state, at least very small state. Not just a club of shared interests with members living their lives in regular nation-states. Do you have any examples in mind?
anarchist society comparable to state
a what?!
Something that can replace state, at least basic stuff like economy and infrastructure.
they're going to say rojava lol