BUSH SHOOTS SOME ONE

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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?

 

Headline, Wonder. Headline!

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

The community decides, I don't get what the problem is.

 

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.

 

Okay... point made clear... lol