Questions 4 anarchists, not self-labeled anarcho-capitalists

[joeshmo]

In an anarchy, what would be done to to this criminal? Would he just be exiled from a community? Would he merely be offered rehabilitative services? What, precisely, would be done to prevent him for harming another individual after such an incident?

I want to address a few possible (anticipated) responses in case your reaction resembles one of those following.

a) "He would be less likely to commit such a horrid act if raised in an anarchy."

b) "Which type out of the myriad of types of anarchy, son?!?!? You clearly don't even understand anarchy if you think we all believe the same thing! Anarchy just means a lack of government. Grrr!!! Get a clue!"

c) "The government does x, y, and z, all these awful things!"


Correspondingly, here are points I emphasize:

A) Unless you believe nobody would do anything so awful, then you have only dodged the questions. I still want to know what would be done to a guy who does that, regardless of how few may exist. Please just be honest and directly answer the question.

B) If you have a personal flavor of anarchism, then I want to know what would be done according to your personal flavor of anarchism. If you merely claim to lack a belief that there should be have a government, then please just be honest and admit you have no answer.

C) You may raise excellent criticisms of the government and provide a great argument. But if you point out the government's flaws and injustices, all I ask is that you please just explicitly answer my questions and not duck them. Please just provide your honest answer.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to you replies!

[irierudeboy]

heh... it's been so long i actually don't mind this seemingly incessant question. i suppose you'll think my answer is a variation of a) or c), but we'll see what you have to say about it. as an aside, i don't think you've chosen the best example to make your argument.

etan patz, a child, was murdered or otherwise disappeared, and the incident happened in a society based on authoritarianism. no matter who did that to him or what happens to that person, the crime has been done, the child lost.

as a matter of fact, thousands and thousands of kids are murdered every year. and there is a sure way to bring that number down to zero - simply have a purely authoritarian surveillance society where everyone's behavior is constantly monitored and evaluated. crime in the old east germany, for example, was very low. i use the hyperbole merely to illustrate that the state has its tools to limit crimes - including the threat of prison.

i'm hoping that you would agree with me that the east german model or a total surveillance society is to be rejected out of hand. the question then simply becomes, what other tools could we deploy to maintain a society with a minimum of crime? and of course the anarchist argues that artificial hierarchies are a (not the) root cause of crime. the person that preys on children, for example, is clearly suffering from an interrupted personal power process which leads them to abuse someone weaker.

of course i must point out that there's a huge difference between the crimes we're talking about and what the state-based society defines as crimes. shoot ten innocent people because you're angry and you go to jail. shoot ten innocent people because your commanding officer told you to and you get a medal. obama kills and rapes lots of children (by proxy) and yet i know lots of people who plan to vote for the guy this november. "who tha criminal?"

so, we posit that crime would be greatly reduced in an non-authoritarian society because of x) the reduction of a root cause of crime and y) the elimination of the largest criminal and crime-enabler, the state. we're still left with bad or insane people who do fucked up things and who pose a threat. the basic answer to that is that nowhere in the official rulebook of anarchy does it say you, your collective, or your community can't defend itself against attack. that might mean killing someone who preys on children. it might mean restraining him in some way. ideally, it might mean finding a way to help that person not want to hurt people anymore. it would, of course, be up to the community, the victims, and others involved who have to make the ultimate choices, but those decisions would be based on the simple principles of self defense rather than the principles of authoritarianism.

the example you've chosen doesn't really illustrate your proposition. if we take this guy at his word, he murdered a child thirty years ago and never did so again. therefore, he wasn't actually a threat all these years. but it's also not 100% obvious that this guy did the crime either. false confessions are made all the time and for a variety of reasons, and there is no physical evidence in this case, just the confession of this one guy. of course, this is just an aside.

in summary: crime happens now, a lot. the anarchist submits that the question is not what should be done with this criminal or that criminal, but how to bring about society where crime doesn't happen or is at least reduced to its minimum. i have not ducked your question, but i've also focused on what the anarchist wants to bring to the discussion.

(note to fellow anarchists: obviously i have been loose with terms like "crime" and even "anarchist." it's not my intention to speak for others or to use the language of the state. in my mind, murdering a child is a crime regardless of if there's a state or not.)

[joeshmo]

it would, of course, be up to the community, the victims, and others involved who have to make the ultimate choices, but those decisions would be based on the simple principles of self defense rather than the principles of authoritarianism.

To prevent other vulnerable individuals from being attacked, would there be a prison, physical institution, island, etc. that harbors the suspect? If so, how would the suspect be moved to such a location? (By force? By persuasion?) If not, what (if anything) would deter the suspect from initiating further acts of torture?

Will you expound on what I quoted above? By "it would be up to the community" do you mean that everyone (or at least everyone who chooses to participate) in the community would democratically vote on how to proceed with handling the suspect? If so, could they democratically vote for a barbaric torture worse than Guantanamo Bay or are there limits on the democratic powers? Precisely where is the line drawn on what is acceptable to be democratically decided? Would prisons be permitted if the majority of community members votes to send the man to prison?

[irierudeboy]

the answer will always be the same, my friend.

authoritarian ideologies and their defenders focus on the criminal and how they will be punished. just like every other issue in "politics" (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, socialism vs. capitalism) authoritarian politicians need legs to stand on, so they emphasize division and base instincts. this inevitably creates a feedback loop which is the major root cause of aggressive violence ("crime").

of course, that's a ridiculous way of looking at things, one that serves the needs of the state instead of people's individual and collective needs. we can talk endlessly about this supposed criminal and what should be done with him, but will any time be spent making sure that what happened to etan patz doesn't happen again?

i answered your question in whole. any actions taken should be based on the principles of self defense rather than the principles of authoritarianism. when you invoke guantanamo-style torture that's clearly a straw man. obviously no one is being defended there. as for structures, methods, and the rest - yes. it would be up to the community. it's probably difficult for people to understand that since we live in a society where very few people are interested in a state institutions like jury duty or voting. again, it's a simple matter of worldview, self-defense being an entirely different matter from state-based punishment; community being an entirely different matter from the state. (btw, in a fascist society such as we have now in most of the world, the state consists of both governments, corporations, and their associated people and institutions.)

we're not going to wake up to a world of anarchy tomorrow, nor should we fail to learn from the history, mostly state-based, of humanity so far. that's why questions like this are, frankly, very silly. ideologies are based on principles and don't fit neatly over all the nooks and crannies of society. we can play the "haha the anarchist wants to build a prison!" game all day, but the reality on the ground is that etan patz is dead, he was murdered in an authoritarian society, and there is a way to have a society where things like that are far less likely to happen - and possibly even one where such things don't happen at all. but only if people want it; they apparently love killing each other too much for now.

[joeshmo]

You have painted part of the picture, but some questions were left unanswered.

To clarify, what is your "yes" or "no" answer to this: To prevent other vulnerable individuals from being attacked, would there be a prison, physical institution, island, etc. that harbors the suspect?

If your answer is "yes": How would the suspect be moved to such a location? (By force? By persuasion?)

If your answer is "no": What (if anything) would deter this particular suspect from initiating further acts of torture (if there is overwhelming evidence that he is guilty)?

By "it would be up to the community" do you mean that everyone (or at least everyone who chooses to participate) in the community would democratically vote on how to proceed with handling the suspect? I know you said "it would be up to the community" but I am left wondering whether or not that means the majority of votes from members of the community would decide his fate.

authoritarian ideologies and their defenders focus on the criminal and how they will be punished.

I understand you are asserting that "focus," at least in a relative sense, is directed at prospects of punishment by authoritarians (and defenders or authoritarianism). To clarify, do believe there should be any punishment at all? (A "yes" or "no" answer is preferred, but you are -of course- free to reply as you wish and additional content is always a fun read.)

[irierudeboy]

"To prevent other vulnerable individuals from being attacked..."

...tactics and principles of self-defense (and defense of the vulnerable) would be deployed. certainly that would include restraining or even killing someone who refuses to stop being violent with others.

and that would certainly be an improvement over the current situation, where mass killers and others who refuse to stop their violence against innocents - people like barack obama, benjamin nethanyahu, elizabeth of england, and many others - are allowed to not only remain free, but also to retain power and continue murdering people.

"How would the suspect (sic) be moved to such a location? (By force?..."

If you aggressively attack me and I defend myself, am I using force? yup.

"By "it would be up to the community" do you mean that ..."

i mean that it would be up to the community. there are no absolutes. as soon as two or more people are involved there will be disagreements and conflicts. voting may or may not be good tasting to one community or another. chaos-style "do what thou wilt" communities might even exist somewhere. perhaps some community somewhere will seek answers in the flames of fire, or the alignments of heavenly bodies. it would be up to the community.

"punishment"

i personally do not think that the idea of punishment is consistent with the idea of self defense.

here's the thing when it comes to this wonderful idea called anarchism that i say over and over again: it isn't a one-way street the way authoritarian systems are. every sane person knows that if you eliminated the police and the government today, a horrible chaos would quickly ensue in even more places than it exists today. anarchism won't just be the day that we no longer *have* the state, it will be the day we no longer *need* the state.