As surprising as it might sound, the Roman Republic had no formal policing forces at all! An unusual point of unity between an ancient polity noted for its sense of hierarchy, and hierarchy-averse modern anarchist ideology!
The Romans, you see, had a very minimalistic government in the period of the Republic precisely because they feared the imposition of tyranny by government fiat. For that matter, only the most important issues were covered by criminal law - treason, murder, abuse of power, rape, and false testimony. Everything else - from theft to assault to slander - was covered by civil law. So if there was a criminal on the loose, the thinking was that, as the community had agreed to make the laws, so too would the community band together to enforce them - it was a citizen’s responsibility, when called to, to help his neighbors seize hold of a dangerous criminal and bring him in for trial! And if the person was not a dangerous criminal, if it was only a civil dispute… what need was there for such urgency?
This… does have its weaknesses, and the Roman Empire would later see the vigiles, a formalized town watch with some policing duties (particularly separation of violent parties, and delivery of the accused to trial; not so much general crime prevention), and stationarii, legionary detachments tasked with suppressing banditry and other exceptionally violent crimes. Nevertheless, even in the Empire’s time, much of enforcement of civil law was down to oneself and one’s neighbors - people are noted as screaming at all hours of the night outside of folk who refuse to turn up for court in a reasonable amount of time; or when a judgement is reached by default if the accused doesn’t show up to a civil trial within the month, appearing with their friends and (entirely lawfully, as that was the expected enforcement mechanism!) seizing the ‘fined’ amount of property from the person’s home themselves!
I’m not an anarchist myself, and I consider, despite the abhorrent state of policing in my country and the importance of oversight of all positions of power in general, policing to be a positive institution overall. Conceptually, at least, for as much as American police do their damndest to drive the cost-benefit analysis into the red.
However, it is a demonstration of a legitimate and important point often raised by anarchists - that formal policing forces are not the difference between a (more or less) functioning society and chaos. They are a convenience, not a necessity, and policing forces are comparatively recent inventions. Modern policing dates only to the 19th century; post-Roman military policing only to the 16th century in most European cultures. Irregular and volunteer institutions of militia-watch date to the medieval period, but only with the emergence of high-density towns and cities. Before that, enforcement was by the community itself - sometimes good, sometimes bad.
The mutual aid functions of Roman collegia might also be of interest to anarchists looking for refutations to common canards of the supposed fantastic nature of anarchist solutions to problems. I may not agree with anarchist proposals as optimal, but I am often more than happy to lend a voice about whether they are functional!
I’m not an anarchist myself, and I consider… policing to be a positive institution overall.
noway
your whole post conflates hierarchical violence and distributed tyranny with anarchism. incredibly dishonest framing.
the people who had power were the patriarchs and patrons, ‘the community’ was free male citizens only. this excluded women, slaves and anyone who wasn’t a citizen.
local patrons (oligarchs) would mobilize client networks as private armies to collect debts and exert local control. this wasn’t limited to street violence, patron networks also dominated local legal systems.
patria potestas meant that households were formally domestic tyranny. heads of household had legal power of life and death over wives, children, and slaves.
none of this is anti-hierarchical or consensual. ‘no formal police’ just meant violence was privatized through patron-client networks and patriarchal households.
roman collegia were not mutual aid, they were hierarchical guilds with aristocratic patrons who had total control over the institution. they enforced trade monopolies and social conformity among members.
I may not agree with anarchist proposals as optimal, but I am often more than happy to lend a voice about whether they are functional
i think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
your whole post conflates hierarchical violence and distributed tyranny with anarchism. incredibly dishonest framing.
Fucking what.
i think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
Yes, yes, we get it, there’s nothing you hate more than examples of societal functioning that align with your professed values, unless the function in question is run by a genocidal bootlicker state you simp for, like the Soviet Union, the PRC, and fucking North Korea, which you assert has ‘anarchist tendencies’.
Enjoy that boot leather, it’s painted a real nice shade of red. Or maybe that’s the blood of the proletariat covering it? I guess that makes it taste even better to fascist scum like you.
the people who had power were the patriarchs and patrons, ‘the community’ was free male citizens only. this excluded women, slaves and anyone who wasn’t a citizen.
The discussion is within the context of the citizen community. The exclusion of women and non-citizens from this discussion is not meant to present the Roman system as in some way laudable by modern standards, but to present that community enforcement on a roughly and formally non-hierarchical fashion is demonstrably possible.
local patrons (oligarchs) would mobilize client networks as private armies to collect debts and exert local control. this wasn’t limited to street violence, patron networks also dominated local legal systems.
Your characterization of patronage as consisting of oligarch-dominated street violence only holds any credibility in the city of Rome itself in the very last years of the Republic, but I guess your desperation to discredit any functioning of non-hierarchical non-institutionalized enforcement leads to that level of disingenuity, doesn’t it, bootlicker?
patria potestas meant that households were formally domestic tyranny. heads of household had legal power of life and death over wives, children, and slaves.
Patria potestas was not a legal function even by the mid-Republic, if it ever actually was, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of basic Roman law, including Roman marriage. What did you do, badly skim the wiki page on Roman law and decide you were an expert?
none of this is anti-hierarchical or consensual. ’no formal police’ just meant violence was privatized through patron-client networks and patriarchal households.
Again, reflecting a near-total ignorance of Roman law and society.
roman collegia were not mutual aid, they were hierarchical guilds with aristocratic patrons who had total control over the institution. they enforced trade monopolies and social conformity among members.
This is a particularly idiotic conflation of Roman collegia with later medieval guild systems, though unsurprising coming from a ignorant bootlicker like you.
‘bootlicker’ from the person who thinks policing is ‘positive institution overall’ and romanticizes oligarchic slave states.
I’m sorry that you think that bootlicking for North Korea is in some way anti-authoritarian. I hope you get better - but I know fascists rarely do.
it’s also rich calling me ignorant when all you’ve done is display manifest ignorance of anarchism
Sorry that acknowledging that a lack of policing institutions is pretty core to most anarchist thought. I’m also sorry for pointing out that the fucking totalitarian states you bootlick for aren’t anarchist in the least.
dispersed, hierarchical violence isn’t necessarily better than centralized monopoly on violence, both are bad. you have just been desperate to run some revisionism though. like you keep calling me a fascist, despite you being the one trying to act like it was just a minor footnote that this was still an oligarchic slave state full of incredible violence.
you insist on making straw targets to go after, you make up shit constantly and haven’t been able to stop insulting me, nor have you really responded to anything I said.
Thank you for again missing what has explicitly been stated in exchange for some weird pop-culture interpretation of Roman law.
like you keep calling me a fascist,
You bootlick for North Korea. There’s not much else you could be except a fascist. Unless you’d like to explain how Juche totally isn’t fascism for the class?
despite you being the one trying to act like it was just a minor footnote that this was still an oligarchic slave state full of incredible violence.
That was never denied, dipshit, and is entirely apart from the point being made. Sorry that you’re illiterate.
that was never denied, [insult] and is entirely apart from the point
you admit it was an oligarchic slave state full of violence but then go on to claim this doesn’t matter to your argument that it demonstrates ‘non-hierarchical community enforcement.’
a hierarchical slave state can’t demonstrate non-hierarchical anything. the violence and oligarchy are kind of the point.
i’m generally not interested in demonizing US-designated enemies when US imperialism is the primary issue. that don’t mean i endorse every part of those states, nor is it bootlicking. bootlicking would be romanticizing tyranny and defending policing as an institution.
you admit it was an oligarchic slave state full of violence but then go on to claim this doesn’t matter to your argument that it demonstrates ’non-hierarchical community enforcement.’ a hierarchical slave state can’t demonstrate non-hierarchical anything.
So your position is, then, that no part of Roman society was capable of being non-hierarchical because of the hierarchical nature of the state, and that, thus implied by said argument, no state, being innately hierarchical institutions, can demonstrate any aspect of non-hierarchical function in the societies they rule over?
Stunningly moronic and self-defeating. But I presume you’ll carve out all sorts of exceptions for your favorite genocidal police states that you constantly jerk off your murder-boner for.
i’m generally not interested in demonizing US-designated enemies when US imperialism is the primary issue.
No, but you are interested in praising them and engaging in atrocity denial. Tell us again how anarchism is one of the major contributors to Juche ideology. Or would you like me to quote you? I’m sure I can find it with a quick search.
that don’t mean i endorse every part of those states, nor is it bootlicking.
“It’s not bootlicking when I simp for a totalitarian police state, because US bad!”
Boot leather must taste delicious for you to be so eager and consistent in seeking it out.
bootlicking would be romanticizing tyranny and defending policing as an institution.
I love the part where you romanticize “AES” police states and defend them, and then deny it. But fascists like you have never believed that words have to mean anything.
No, I mean that the lictors had no power beyond that of other citizens. The lictors had no ability beyond what we would regard as a “citizen’s arrest”. They had no power of their own. If a Praetor told a random citizen on the street to arrest another, the process would be entirely and exactly the same, as well as the punishment for not doing so - nil. A detainment by a lictor was not any more legally binding than a detainment by anyone else. Lictors had no authority, and even the authority of their magistrate was extremely limited in that their detainments, likewise, were not regarded as more lawful than any other citizen bringing in another to court.
hence the rest of the comment. They served a critical role for the local rulers and magistrates.
Not really? Lictors were overwhelmingly ceremonial at any time beyond the earliest years of the Republic.
They were the embodiment and a measurement of the imperium which gave authority over government and military command. Not every citizen held that authority or command, nor does it mean lictors acted independently in their role.
Getting back to it, this meme appears to require a very specific and literal use of ‘cop’ to work.
They were the embodiment and a measurement of the imperium which gave authority over government and military command.
Imperium was by the nature of Roman law extremely limited and specific. What you’re saying has no relevance to the authority of a magistrate to make detentions of citizens on the grounds of criminal or civil wrongdoing.
Getting back to it, this meme appears to require a very specific and literal use of ‘cop’ to work.
“Getting back to it”
Your entire point is that lictors are, in your view, cops, so there’s no ‘back to it’ involved.
If you feel so strongly about the word usage, please define ‘cop’ for me in such a way that would not imply that anarchist polities also have ‘cops’.
My initial point being that they did state sanctioned violence, which was their role, ceremonial and otherwise.
Only insofar as state sanctioned violence is here defined as “any violence acknowledged as legitimate by the state”, which would make every use of self-defense in a modern context also state-sanctioned violence.
So: the association with being a direct embodiment of state authority and power of violence.
So let me get this straight, just so I know what I’m arguing against - your definition of police, in this context, is anyone symbolically associated with the use of violence legitimized by the standards of the polity, even without any attendant legal power.
Explanation: A rare bit of OC from me!
As surprising as it might sound, the Roman Republic had no formal policing forces at all! An unusual point of unity between an ancient polity noted for its sense of hierarchy, and hierarchy-averse modern anarchist ideology!
The Romans, you see, had a very minimalistic government in the period of the Republic precisely because they feared the imposition of tyranny by government fiat. For that matter, only the most important issues were covered by criminal law - treason, murder, abuse of power, rape, and false testimony. Everything else - from theft to assault to slander - was covered by civil law. So if there was a criminal on the loose, the thinking was that, as the community had agreed to make the laws, so too would the community band together to enforce them - it was a citizen’s responsibility, when called to, to help his neighbors seize hold of a dangerous criminal and bring him in for trial! And if the person was not a dangerous criminal, if it was only a civil dispute… what need was there for such urgency?
This… does have its weaknesses, and the Roman Empire would later see the vigiles, a formalized town watch with some policing duties (particularly separation of violent parties, and delivery of the accused to trial; not so much general crime prevention), and stationarii, legionary detachments tasked with suppressing banditry and other exceptionally violent crimes. Nevertheless, even in the Empire’s time, much of enforcement of civil law was down to oneself and one’s neighbors - people are noted as screaming at all hours of the night outside of folk who refuse to turn up for court in a reasonable amount of time; or when a judgement is reached by default if the accused doesn’t show up to a civil trial within the month, appearing with their friends and (entirely lawfully, as that was the expected enforcement mechanism!) seizing the ‘fined’ amount of property from the person’s home themselves!
I’m not an anarchist myself, and I consider, despite the abhorrent state of policing in my country and the importance of oversight of all positions of power in general, policing to be a positive institution overall. Conceptually, at least, for as much as American police do their damndest to drive the cost-benefit analysis into the red.
However, it is a demonstration of a legitimate and important point often raised by anarchists - that formal policing forces are not the difference between a (more or less) functioning society and chaos. They are a convenience, not a necessity, and policing forces are comparatively recent inventions. Modern policing dates only to the 19th century; post-Roman military policing only to the 16th century in most European cultures. Irregular and volunteer institutions of militia-watch date to the medieval period, but only with the emergence of high-density towns and cities. Before that, enforcement was by the community itself - sometimes good, sometimes bad.
The mutual aid functions of Roman collegia might also be of interest to anarchists looking for refutations to common canards of the supposed fantastic nature of anarchist solutions to problems. I may not agree with anarchist proposals as optimal, but I am often more than happy to lend a voice about whether they are functional!
noway
your whole post conflates hierarchical violence and distributed tyranny with anarchism. incredibly dishonest framing.
the people who had power were the patriarchs and patrons, ‘the community’ was free male citizens only. this excluded women, slaves and anyone who wasn’t a citizen.
local patrons (oligarchs) would mobilize client networks as private armies to collect debts and exert local control. this wasn’t limited to street violence, patron networks also dominated local legal systems.
patria potestas meant that households were formally domestic tyranny. heads of household had legal power of life and death over wives, children, and slaves.
none of this is anti-hierarchical or consensual. ‘no formal police’ just meant violence was privatized through patron-client networks and patriarchal households.
roman collegia were not mutual aid, they were hierarchical guilds with aristocratic patrons who had total control over the institution. they enforced trade monopolies and social conformity among members.
i think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
Fucking what.
Yes, yes, we get it, there’s nothing you hate more than examples of societal functioning that align with your professed values, unless the function in question is run by a genocidal bootlicker state you simp for, like the Soviet Union, the PRC, and fucking North Korea, which you assert has ‘anarchist tendencies’.
Enjoy that boot leather, it’s painted a real nice shade of red. Or maybe that’s the blood of the proletariat covering it? I guess that makes it taste even better to fascist scum like you.
The discussion is within the context of the citizen community. The exclusion of women and non-citizens from this discussion is not meant to present the Roman system as in some way laudable by modern standards, but to present that community enforcement on a roughly and formally non-hierarchical fashion is demonstrably possible.
Your characterization of patronage as consisting of oligarch-dominated street violence only holds any credibility in the city of Rome itself in the very last years of the Republic, but I guess your desperation to discredit any functioning of non-hierarchical non-institutionalized enforcement leads to that level of disingenuity, doesn’t it, bootlicker?
Patria potestas was not a legal function even by the mid-Republic, if it ever actually was, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of basic Roman law, including Roman marriage. What did you do, badly skim the wiki page on Roman law and decide you were an expert?
Again, reflecting a near-total ignorance of Roman law and society.
This is a particularly idiotic conflation of Roman collegia with later medieval guild systems, though unsurprising coming from a ignorant bootlicker like you.
‘bootlicker’ from the person who thinks policing is ‘positive institution overall’ and romanticizes oligarchic slave states.
it’s also rich calling me ignorant when all you’ve done is display manifest ignorance of anarchism
your posts suck ass, please do less
I’m sorry that you think that bootlicking for North Korea is in some way anti-authoritarian. I hope you get better - but I know fascists rarely do.
Sorry that acknowledging that a lack of policing institutions is pretty core to most anarchist thought. I’m also sorry for pointing out that the fucking totalitarian states you bootlick for aren’t anarchist in the least.
dispersed, hierarchical violence isn’t necessarily better than centralized monopoly on violence, both are bad. you have just been desperate to run some revisionism though. like you keep calling me a fascist, despite you being the one trying to act like it was just a minor footnote that this was still an oligarchic slave state full of incredible violence.
you insist on making straw targets to go after, you make up shit constantly and haven’t been able to stop insulting me, nor have you really responded to anything I said.
also stop apologizing, it’s pathetic
Thank you for again missing what has explicitly been stated in exchange for some weird pop-culture interpretation of Roman law.
You bootlick for North Korea. There’s not much else you could be except a fascist. Unless you’d like to explain how Juche totally isn’t fascism for the class?
That was never denied, dipshit, and is entirely apart from the point being made. Sorry that you’re illiterate.
you admit it was an oligarchic slave state full of violence but then go on to claim this doesn’t matter to your argument that it demonstrates ‘non-hierarchical community enforcement.’ a hierarchical slave state can’t demonstrate non-hierarchical anything. the violence and oligarchy are kind of the point.
i’m generally not interested in demonizing US-designated enemies when US imperialism is the primary issue. that don’t mean i endorse every part of those states, nor is it bootlicking. bootlicking would be romanticizing tyranny and defending policing as an institution.
So your position is, then, that no part of Roman society was capable of being non-hierarchical because of the hierarchical nature of the state, and that, thus implied by said argument, no state, being innately hierarchical institutions, can demonstrate any aspect of non-hierarchical function in the societies they rule over?
Stunningly moronic and self-defeating. But I presume you’ll carve out all sorts of exceptions for your favorite genocidal police states that you constantly jerk off your murder-boner for.
No, but you are interested in praising them and engaging in atrocity denial. Tell us again how anarchism is one of the major contributors to Juche ideology. Or would you like me to quote you? I’m sure I can find it with a quick search.
“It’s not bootlicking when I simp for a totalitarian police state, because US bad!”
Boot leather must taste delicious for you to be so eager and consistent in seeking it out.
I love the part where you romanticize “AES” police states and defend them, and then deny it. But fascists like you have never believed that words have to mean anything.
Are you just forgetting about the Lictor? They were a fixture of regal, republic, and imperial Rome. You know, the guys with the fasces?
They were a direct and specific role doing state sanctioned violence for the Praetor. It seems overly selective to exclude this role in Roman society.
Who had no independent power to arrest or detain individuals beyond the power held by other citizens.
‘Other citizens’ such as: the Praetor; hence the rest of the comment. They served a critical role for the local rulers and magistrates.
No, I mean that the lictors had no power beyond that of other citizens. The lictors had no ability beyond what we would regard as a “citizen’s arrest”. They had no power of their own. If a Praetor told a random citizen on the street to arrest another, the process would be entirely and exactly the same, as well as the punishment for not doing so - nil. A detainment by a lictor was not any more legally binding than a detainment by anyone else. Lictors had no authority, and even the authority of their magistrate was extremely limited in that their detainments, likewise, were not regarded as more lawful than any other citizen bringing in another to court.
Not really? Lictors were overwhelmingly ceremonial at any time beyond the earliest years of the Republic.
They were the embodiment and a measurement of the imperium which gave authority over government and military command. Not every citizen held that authority or command, nor does it mean lictors acted independently in their role.
Getting back to it, this meme appears to require a very specific and literal use of ‘cop’ to work.
Imperium was by the nature of Roman law extremely limited and specific. What you’re saying has no relevance to the authority of a magistrate to make detentions of citizens on the grounds of criminal or civil wrongdoing.
“Getting back to it”
Your entire point is that lictors are, in your view, cops, so there’s no ‘back to it’ involved.
If you feel so strongly about the word usage, please define ‘cop’ for me in such a way that would not imply that anarchist polities also have ‘cops’.
My initial point being that they did state sanctioned violence, which was their role, ceremonial and otherwise.
So: the association with being a direct embodiment of state authority and power of violence.
Only insofar as state sanctioned violence is here defined as “any violence acknowledged as legitimate by the state”, which would make every use of self-defense in a modern context also state-sanctioned violence.
So let me get this straight, just so I know what I’m arguing against - your definition of police, in this context, is anyone symbolically associated with the use of violence legitimized by the standards of the polity, even without any attendant legal power.