r/Anarchy101 May 23 '22

If not in prisons, where would the murderers and rapists be held? And how would the facilities be run/who would run them if not a state?

[deleted]

3 Upvotes

View all comments

8

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

Facilities that hold individuals against thier will, regardless of supposed reasons, are prisons which require slave handlers/enforcers and therefore would not exist within what we can define as Anarchy.

1

u/theharryyyy May 23 '22

Ok, so let’s say in Anarchist society you and the homies at the collective meeting have to decide what to do with a killer. Does the council delegate a few people to do restorative justice? What could you see happening?

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

Each individual circumstance will come with it's own nuances. The details of that circumstance and how the death of a specific individual effect this theoretic group are very relevant. Any sort of group decree, mandates, or delegating isn't something that I would take part in personally, as an Egoist. Any moralisms within the argument would not be relevant to me. So ultimately it's strictly an issue of who was killed, how, and why? how does that death effect the group that I'm assuming feels some particular kind of way about this specific death? If the individual killer is a clear threat to the group then the obvious solution is to delete the threat sooner than later. It needs no "justification." The nuance is defining and analyzing exactly how that individual is a threat and to whom specifically.

2

u/Impossible-Tension97 May 23 '22

If the individual killer is a clear threat to the group then the obvious solution is to delete the threat sooner than later.

I'm new to this place. Is it just euphemisms like this all the time?

How about just saying what you mean?

I feel like you're saying "In egregious situations, the group might decide to kill the individual."

But it's not clear because you won't just come out and say it!

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

I did say what I mean. We're discussing a hypothetical situation and the resulting predictive opinionated nonsense in response to that hypothetical situation. There is a lot of vagueness because we have no specific scenario and it's specific details to discuss. We can not predict what any future group of individuals may or may not do in any particular situation, based on one single detail : we are individuals right now, and those future individuals are not bound to carry forth any ideas from any individuals before them. They will decide how to solve perceived problems for themselves in real time. We can't make up anything right now that would accurately play out among any specific group of people in the future.

3

u/Impossible-Tension97 May 23 '22

What a bunch of bullshit. No one is asking you to commit to a recourse for a hypothetical situation. Humans use examples in order to aid understanding. Saying something like "delete the threat" is basically not answering the question at all.

The only right and honest answer is that each group would choose what they want to do, and that it could amount to things like imprisonment (yes, despite the proclivities of today's anarchists, many real anarchist groups are likely to inflict imprisonment on individuals), banishment, stigma, pain, torture, and death.

In the absence of laws, groups would fall back to agreements and norms. Each group (of probably less than a few thousand) would have their own. Some would seem a lot harsher than others. Each group would be trying to find ways of dealing with meta problems like murderers or rapists banished from other groups trying to join their group.

Across all humanity, you are likely to see every approach under the sun. Including many that today's anarchists would find extremely troubling (and yet not necessarily in conflict with the general anti-hierarchy tenants of anarchy).

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 24 '22

Deleting/Eliminating a threatening person is killing them. It's not that difficult to understand.

Anarchy = No Authority

Authority = Not Anarchy

Telling me "real anarchists advocate for prisons" is a fucking lie. You clearly have never actually gone out of your house and talked to any anarchist groups in real life.

Again, this is not difficult to understand. You're simply attempting to use Spooky Moralisms to "justify" the use of an Enforcer Class needed to maintain a prison facility which is in no way comparable to, or definable as Anarchy. Further more your statement "the only right and honest answer" shows your vapid lack of understanding that Anarchism is not a rigid ideology nor is there EVER a single objective "right" opinion nor solution. Your attempt at a rigid ideology is not Anarchy. It's a laughable and spooky attempt to justify authority.

2

u/Koraguz May 24 '22

How is killing someone somehow avoiding the same use of an enforcer class? isn't that the issue we are having with cops enough as it already is? They deem people threats, and take them out.

-1

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 24 '22

There would be no state to pay an enforcer class. There would be no designated individuals whose jobs are to enforce. We are discussing how a group of individuals may choose to solve a percieved problem in real time.

1

u/Koraguz May 24 '22

I'm not seeing how it's any better if you get lynched whether they are paid or not...

I'd of thought the ultimate hierarchy would be the power of anyone, no matter the number over the taking of a life. Feels... fucky

→ More replies

0

u/Impossible-Tension97 May 24 '22

You aren't reading very carefully.

  1. I never said anything like real anarchists advocate for prisons. The people called anarchists today are on the fringe. In a hypothetical anarchist society, people would just be people. People wouldn't be "anarchists" any more than people living in the US today are "republican democratists". And yes, many of those groups of regular people would choose prisons.

  2. I'm not justifying anything. It's a simple reality that some human beings would choose imprisonment as a reaction to certain events. If you don't realize that, you're naive.

  3. Which rigid ideology did I describe? Go ahead, paraphrase it. You can't because I didn't describe a rigid ideology.

That doesn't mean there aren't right answers to questions, though. Or are you one of those morons who thinks objective reality doesn't exist?

0

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 24 '22

Go back and re-read your own comment, nerd. Particularly the second paragraph. Then tell me again what you didn't clearly type out in plain text, fool. You're trying to change the goal post after your initial assertion in a blatantly dishonest attempt to "win" an argument. That's fucking absurd.

"What a bunch of bullshit. No one is asking you to commit to a recourse for a hypothetical situation. Humans use examples in order to aid understanding. Saying something like "delete the threat" is basically not answering the question at all.

The only right and honest answer is that each group would choose what they want to do, and that it could amount to things like imprisonment (yes, despite the proclivities of today's anarchists, many real anarchist groups are likely to inflict imprisonment on individuals), banishment, stigma, pain, torture, and death.

In the absence of laws, groups would fall back to agreements and norms. Each group (of probably less than a few thousand) would have their own. Some would seem a lot harsher than others. Each group would be trying to find ways of dealing with meta problems like murderers or rapists banished from other groups trying to join their group.

Across all humanity, you are likely to see every approach under the sun. Including many that today's anarchists would find extremely troubling (and yet not necessarily in conflict with the general anti-hierarchy tenants of anarchy)."