When people object to anarchy, they often ask about those who would steal, murder, rape and so forth and seem to assume that such people would be free to act as they like. This is, needless to say, an utter misunderstanding of both our ideas and freedom in general. Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then “they will be the government” and “we will oppose them with force” for “if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors.”
It should be remembered that just because the state monopolises or organises a (public) service, it does not mean that the abolition of the state means the abolition of what useful things it provided. For example, many states own and run the train network but the abolition of the state does not mean that there will no longer be any trains! In a free society management of the railways would be done by the rail workers themselves, in association with the community. The same applies to anti-social behaviour and so we find Kropotkin, for example, pointing to how “voluntary associations” would “substitute themselves for the State in all its functions,” including “mutual protection” and “defence of the territory.”
So, in simple terms, we would prevent murder and rape. We, the people. It’s definitely worth reading the FAQ more as it also covers why rapes and murders occur, and why anarchism would dramatically reduce the incedence rate of those crimes.
And democracy was criticized as “mob rule” in the days of the divine right of kings. Most people today - though they acknowledge its flaws - agree that democracy is better than the alternatives.
“Mob justice” is better than the punitive false justice system we have now.
The police is constrained, at least in theory, by the threat of losing their livelihood, being sued, or going to jail. Powers that be tend to put their fingers on the scale except in the most egregious examples, but at least there’s some sort of counterweight, unlike with a lynch mob.
Well, to begin with, as you well know, that doesn’t work in practice.
I trust in the cops suffering consequences somewhat more then I do a lynch mob. The “voluntary association” who resolved what they viewed as “anti-social behavior” from Emmett Till suffered no consequences for their actions.
Many people are excluded from serving in the police force, yes. Also, an anarchist voluntary association would have no powers beyond those of everyday citizens.
Explain how you deal with or prevent rape and murder in an anarchist society.
We don’t prevent or deal with rape in our current society, you do realize? It’s one of the most ignored crimes.
I’ll link and quote the relevant part of an anarchist FAQ for you:
So, in simple terms, we would prevent murder and rape. We, the people. It’s definitely worth reading the FAQ more as it also covers why rapes and murders occur, and why anarchism would dramatically reduce the incedence rate of those crimes.
Sounds like mob justice to me, but maybe I’m a cynic.
And democracy was criticized as “mob rule” in the days of the divine right of kings. Most people today - though they acknowledge its flaws - agree that democracy is better than the alternatives.
“Mob justice” is better than the punitive false justice system we have now.
Could you explain how a formal police force with a monopoly on violence isn’t mob justice, but a voluntary association would be?
The police is constrained, at least in theory, by the threat of losing their livelihood, being sued, or going to jail. Powers that be tend to put their fingers on the scale except in the most egregious examples, but at least there’s some sort of counterweight, unlike with a lynch mob.
Well, to begin with, as you well know, that doesn’t work in practice.
Who constrains the police? You mentioned they are under threat - where does that threat come from?
I trust in the cops suffering consequences somewhat more then I do a lynch mob. The “voluntary association” who resolved what they viewed as “anti-social behavior” from Emmett Till suffered no consequences for their actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
Already pointed out. Make a point.
There are far, far more cases of police officers not being held responsible for their atrocities.
You didn’t point it out at all - you are saying that someone holds the police responsible for their actions. Who does that?
Which still has a higher percentage of being held accountable then voluntary associations like the Klan did.
I in fact did. Not going to ask again: Make whatever point you’re trying to make.
are you saying a formal police force isn’t voluntary?
Many people are excluded from serving in the police force, yes. Also, an anarchist voluntary association would have no powers beyond those of everyday citizens.
Are you a bot?
Do we really have a justice system now? (I’m in US, so forgive me if you are in a more civilized place)
Maybe a group of grandmas could be the “mob justice”. I’d trust them more than cops and judges.
Every post of yours in this community has been some edgy bad faith take. Why would I bother wasting time answering this question for you?
Google it yourself, it’s been asked a million times before and you personally are not worth my time any further now that I’ve seen what you are.
Vast majority of crimes can be prevented by just providing people with basic resources, education and emotional support.
Anarchist FAQ: What about crime?