Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

BUSH SHOOTS SOME ONE

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by Wonder138, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. Wonder138

    Wonder138Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    437

    0

    0

    Dec 2, 2009
     
    okay so lets say that an anarchist society happens and its great and theirs one guy lets call him BUSH
    so BUSH drinks alot but that's okay cause theirs no laws against drinking
    but then one night BUSH drinks a little to much and he kills someone cause hes angry
    then what do we do? kicking him out or killing him is not anarchy

    My friend brought this up to me while we discussed anarchy all i could say was well i believe in anarchy and peace and that wouldn't happen if there was true peace
    but dose any body have any thing to comment on this or any answers for the above said question? its rely fucking mind boggling :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs:
     

  2. Rabbit

    RabbitExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    203

    1

    0

    Oct 26, 2009
     
    Kicking him out or killing him could easily be done without a government. Anarchy does not mean free for all, it means decentralized authority. The rest of the community decides what to do about this guy. Maybe he doesnt get to drink anymore, maybe he doesnt get to touch a gun again, maybe worse. If he doesnt like it, he leaves.
    It's naive in the extreme to believe that something like this simply wouldnt happen. Communities must maintain order by rules decided on by consensus.
     
  3. JimMD

    JimMDExperienced Member Experienced member


    52

    0

    6

    Dec 14, 2009
     United Kingdom
    Wouldn't governments at the head of representative democracies currently argue that the rules they uphold are in adherence with the 'concensus' of society? Surely the basic point about freedom is that one no longer needs to have recourse to rules set by outside forces or higher 'authority'. Freedom creates the opportunity for moral self-direction. Perhaps our character Bush lacked self-direction since he was inebriated - though that seems a weak excuse. Also, why did he have a gun?
    Further, it is not the job of society to punish crimes. Rather, for those who behave in a way unacceptable to others - the case here being that Bush shot someone - the 'offender' should be rehabilitated, shown the error of his actions. And indeed, others will very clearly be able to see the error and take example from that as well. I find it hard to believe that Bush would behave in a similarly irresponsible way in future. If he did then it might be down to a psycholgical illness, which would have to be treated as such.
    And let's take it further back, what sort of society did Bush grow up in that he ended up getting drunk, getting angry, and then shooting someone? As the initial poster noted, peace is the outcome of anarchy. A society where individuals are given the opportunity to develop fully as self-responsible people would be highly unlikely to produce characters such as Bush.
    Your idea about anarchy meaning merely decentralised authority sounds like a return to a parochial feudal system Rabbit.
     
  4. Rabbit

    RabbitExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    203

    1

    0

    Oct 26, 2009
     
    I fail to see how you could get that from my post. I am talking about an anarcho collectivist system in which the community has the power to set its own rules. Heads of current democracies claim that they govern with consensus, but that is untrue. Someone in Washington D.C. can't set the rules for me out here in Chicago. The lack of a hierarchy makes what I proposed quite unlike feudalism, along with the fact that I am assuming greater cooperation from one region to the next, much unlike the medieval feudal system
    I do agree with you that the emphasis is on making sure the offender doesnt repeat the same action rather than punishment.
     
  5. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Anarchy: without centralized leadership
    Anomy: without laws, rules of conduct or any other regulations.
    Therefore even within an anarchist society there would be rules, laws and regulations to live by, most of them would most likely revolve around not harming someone else, much like it is today.
    What the exact solution to your problem is would depend on the community I think, so I'm on Rabbit with thisone.
     
  6. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    Time to paraphrase V for Vendetta
    "Anarchy is not the land of take what you want. It is the land of do as you will."
     
  7. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I would ask Bush to take the gun and shoot himself with it in the foot or leg or through a hand...not necessrily an eye for an eye as that is fascistic, but somewhere non life threatening. I would propose this to my fellow Anarchists and more than likely be shot down as too authoritarian but I bet Bush would never want to raise a gun in anger again after feeling the seering pain he himself had inflicted on another. What did Native Americans do in an instance such as this?
     
  8. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Headline, Wonder. Headline!
     
  9. Wonder138

    Wonder138Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    437

    0

    0

    Dec 2, 2009
     
    i never he said he shot someone i said he killed someone why would he have a gun idfk
    and thanks just wondering about that i hate to sound hypocritical in a anarchy not anarchy argument or conversation :thumbsup:
     
  10. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    690

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    someone told me that anarchy keeps massive trust on the actualy people...who obviously cant be trusted so i think rules and regulations should still be kept and proper punishment should be taken if anyone did anything wrong like killing someone...because if we dont then there will be alot of murders and serial killers and stuff
    (sorry about my grammer i couldnt put it in any other way)
     
  11. JimMD

    JimMDExperienced Member Experienced member


    52

    0

    6

    Dec 14, 2009
     United Kingdom
    That's a pretty pessimistic view. I'm all for human perfectibility. We're all potential serial killers, but we're also potentially excellent people. As social sponges, it just depends upon what kind of society we develop in. Serial killers are generally dangerously insane, rather than 'evil'. Insanity can be treated like any illness.
    And Rathryn, those definitions are probably spot-on from a dictionary point of view, but its been said many times 'there are perhaps as many anarchisms as there are anarchists'. I would disagree with the implementation of rules and regulations - that doesn't mean to say we wouldn't all be under the influence of social norms.
    Has anyone read Ursula Le Guinn's sci-fiction 'The Dispossessed'? I think its a rather good imaginary embodiment of what anachist society might look like. Although in that case they have extremely limited resources etc.
     
  12. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    But wouldn't the social norms in and of itself replace the existing rules and regulations then?
    Might be that I simply used the wrong terms, but I think we're on the same page here.
     
  13. Ivanovich

    IvanovichExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    2

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    The community decides, I don't get what the problem is.
     
  14. JimMD

    JimMDExperienced Member Experienced member


    52

    0

    6

    Dec 14, 2009
     United Kingdom
    I think the substantial difference between social norms and rules and regulations is that social norms can be overturned much more easily than set rules and regulations - which are, after all, set by others and can easily represent a form of oppression.
    The only situation i can think of that might really require some form of set regulation would in the case of federating through direct deomcracy with the community more widely. Obviously it is very cumbersome to have every individual involved in a decision that is on a wide scale, so delegates have to be appointed to meet other delegates. Because this bestows power upon the individuals nominated as delegates there need to be mechanisms to prevent that becoming a problem, i.e. rotating appointments to delegate posts, instant withdrawal of any delegate by the community, and the prevention of a delegate making unilateral decisions.
    Outside situations involving such large numbers of people, i don't see that rules and regulations would be necessary. If any person observed some form of oppresson or repression developing in their community, they would easily be able to act to prevent it. Especially since they would have free access to any resources they require for that purpose.
    Basically, to maintain anarchistic society there needs to be constant vigilance for freedom, and constant revolution against anything that prevents that. To create anarchist society we have a massive amount of repression and oppression to overcome - which is bolstered by the rules and regulations of those in power. That requires a massive effort and struggle, but once anarchist society is achieved subsequent revolutions to maintain freedom will be extremely small by comparison. For example, if we observed that an individual had come to control a particular institution that we were involved with, we could easily go and set up another instituion free from their control, made possible because of free access to resources, and the solidarity of others willing to help.
    So, my basic point is that while people will inevitably be under influence and pressure from social norms, these can be overcome - whereas rules and regulations are more difficult and complicated to overcome, because there are people who will hid behind rules and regulations to protect their positions of power. If we take away their protection then we can take away their power.
     
  15. Rathryn

    RathrynExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Okay... point made clear... lol
     
Loading...