As a long standing democratic socialist, maybe even communist, my views have recently been going through a state of change, away from my stupid thoughts that Anarchism is naively wrong. But, my question is:
Within Anarchism (more precisely, communist anarchism, since that is where my beliefs probably lie), what happens to those who murder or rape or commit crime basically. The idea is for freedom, so no state endoring law, who will guard the guards and all that, but what happens to those who behave badly.
Thanks.
2007-08-23 13:16:00 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The liberals had nothing to do with this. The Libertarian Party has nothing to do with this. I know, America, the land of the fr- i mean the right wing authoritarians, I'm not gonna get many decent responses, but please, anyone with knowledge?
2007-08-23 13:21:25 · update #1
BTW, China, an AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNIST STATE is closer to America than to anarchism. Honestly, I thought the people would be smart in answering, that I would get it in seconds, but I haven't. I saw the question I asked on an anarchist video on youtube, and it said, "we shall go onto that in more detail in the next video", but the video has only been recently released
2007-08-23 13:23:53 · update #2
I think that in a true communist anarchist system there would be little crime. The material needs of society and its members would be met through collaborative co-operation, their emotional needs would be met though the bonds of a close knit society free from alienation, and their spiritual needs would be met by working for the common good of others each day. Any crimes that did occur would likely be either accidents, crimes of passion, or crimes committed by the mentally incompetent. The cure for those is rehabilitation, and that's where the focus of the society's efforts with respect to crime would lie.
2007-08-23 13:28:19 · answer #1 · answered by GMoney 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Communist Anarchism tends to assume that people will spontaneously labor and part with the efforts of thier labor, out of the natural impulse towards mutual effort. If you're willing to assume that, assuming that there will be no crime isn't much of a stretch.
Philosophically, the idea would be that crime is a result of the unequal distribution of resources and the coercsion of the state, so, once the state is removed, the means of production are there for anyone to use, and the fruits of productive labor are there for anyone to benefit from, the impulse toward crime of any kind - even non-propperty crimes such as you mention, would be gone.
I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss your previous opinion of the philosophy being 'naively wrong.'
2007-08-23 20:31:31 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats the whole problem with you belief, it would probably be the same situation that is happening in Iraq. Small bands of people looking out for themselves and not caring what happens to anyone else. Overall it is a pretty stupid idea. You live in a country that allows you to do anything you want to do as long as you do not disturb others. Why do you even think for a second that things would be better in a free for all. Quit doing drugs or whatever makes you think this crazy stuff, get a job, earn your keep, and respect your neighbors. Is that too much to ask?
2007-08-23 20:26:28 · answer #3 · answered by macbrain_99 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, In Liberalism, Anarchy seems to be the end result, because there are no such things as "bad choices" meaning everyone is free to behave however they want, giving them the power to do all sorts of twisted behavior, the Murderers, Rapists, Drug dealers, whatever people want to do, there would be no punishment, because that is the choice they made and they were given the freedom to do those sorts of things, in essence - Anarchy, because there's no standard of Right Vs. Wrong able to be met with freedom of choice, all choices are considered "good" so it seems.
See?
*chuckles* The Liberalism of today is so weird.
We indeed live in an Orwellian world.
2007-08-23 20:26:05 · answer #4 · answered by Jeremiah Johnson 7 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All types of governments or ideologies require some form of protection for the general population. You can't exist in a world where its everyone for themselves. The people will eventually vote for a body of government that will protect their overall interest over the interest of the individual.
How can I enjoy freedom for me and my family knowing that a murdering rapist lives across the street. How can a murdering rapist enjoy freedom knowing that I would kill him the first moment I get a chance to. Chaos, total chaos.
2007-08-23 20:27:01 · answer #5 · answered by Tinman12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in socialized anarchism the people atually run the government becuase every citizen is part of the "government" even though there is not formal type of government so that makes everone equal, other than that i dont know much about it
2007-08-23 20:33:10 · answer #6 · answered by Mike G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out Bakukin I think you might like him. However as a liberal I find anarchism complete horse s**t, for a bunch of reasons partly including the one you bring up.
2007-08-23 20:21:54 · answer #7 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How do you enforce the everybody's equal part with no govt?
Is this a phony question?
I was thinking of becoming a Fascist - Democrat but I'm not sure now.
2007-08-23 20:28:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Recently in China they shot the dude that for pet product poisoning. Pretty severe. I like democracy.
2007-08-23 20:21:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You seem to be figuring out why anarchy doesn't work. The closest thing we have to anarchy in the US is libertarian.
2007-08-23 20:21:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋