To Anarchists: How does anarchy work.

[Stratovarious]

Yup. And sheriffs/deputies did not resemble what we think of as "the police" at all.

Not at all,,,,,?
List the differences .

 

[Superfluous Man]

But we had sheriffs;

Sheriff James Baldridge 1637

And there's nothing really incompatible with anarchism about individuals delegated their law enforcement authority that everyone has by nature to someone like that.

Likewise with courts.

The question is whether or not we ought to use violence to subjugate other people under our authority without their consent. God's law (which is all that really matters, notwithstanding the insistence of the utilitarians among us) tells us that we ought not do that. Whatever means we use to fight crime and follow due process in judging the accused, we ought to do it without committing more crimes in the process. There's nothing illogical about this kind of ethical purity, and no reason we can't affirm this standard even while we have to live in a world surrounded by others who don't.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Anarchism is totally incompatible with Christianity.

Christianity tells us that the only rightful king of all the earth is Christ, to whom all authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given. All earthly regimes are satanic pretenders. Christ was offered statist rule by Satan. He refused the offer, and he commanded all who follow him also to refuse the offer and to repudiate the methods of the state, but rather to take up their own crosses and follow the path that he trail-blazed.

Provided we allow for the caveat that Christ himself is a legitimate ruler, and that the kind of anarchism in question is only one that denies the legitimacy of earthly rulers who subjugate others by the methods that Jesus commanded us not to use, while still affirming the unique rule of Christ himself, then anarchism is not only compatible with Christianity, but moreover it is the only political philosophy that is.

 

[Superfluous Man]

You need courts, police and military and you need to pay for them. The absence of taxation is an absence of liberty.

OK. When you voluntarily exercise your liberty to pay taxes, anarchists won't resort to violence to prevent you from doing that.

And if you disagree. go start your own tax free competing country and see how well that works.

I see no practical way to do that. And again, it's totally irrelevant. I can repudiate moral evils like taxation right here, right now, in this country, where I pay taxes and drive on government roads, making the most of life in an unfree world without feeling the imaginary obligation to pledge allegiance to it or contribute to its wrongs more than I'm compelled to do under duress.

 

[Stratovarious]

And there's nothing really incompatible with anarchism about individuals delegated their law enforcement authority that everyone has by nature to someone like that.

Likewise with courts.

The question is whether or not we ought to use violence to subjugate other people under our authority without their consent. God's law (which is all that really matters, notwithstanding the insistence of the utilitarians among us) tells us that we ought not do that. Whatever means we use to fight crime and follow due process in judging the accused, we ought to do it without committing more crimes in the process. There's nothing illogical about this kind of ethical purity, and no reason we can't affirm this standard even while we have to live in a world surrounded by others who don't.

What would be appropriate deterrents or prevention of repeat offences to serious crime. as in murder etc.
I would imagine banishment might be appropriate.

 

[Superfluous Man]

What would be appropriate deterrents or prevention of repeat offences to serious crime. as in murder etc.
I would imagine banishment might be appropriate.

Perhaps. Banishment, along the lines of what was done in the ancient Greek polis, is certainly a possibility. But other forms of punishment, including those that are used in America now, such as imprisonment and the death penalty, do not require the state for their execution. That's not to say that they are good punishments. That's really a separate question. But there's nothing about anarchism that automatically disallows their use against those who through due process are found guilty of crimes that deserve them.

 

[Stratovarious]

Perhaps. Banishment, along the lines of what was done in the ancient Greek polis, is certainly a possibility. But other forms of punishment, including those that are used in America now, such as imprisonment and the death penalty, do not require the state for their execution. That's not to say that they are good punishments. That's really a separate question. But there's nothing about anarchism that automatically disallows their use against those who through due process are found guilty of crimes that deserve them.

I may have read something that wasn't there in your mention of ; ''as long as we're not committing other crimes in the process''.
Assuming God is the only one that is allowed to make life and death decisions.
I'll have to read up a lot more on anarchism , there seems to be a sea of variations and interpretations.
I have no idea what the ''current'' popular/accepted interpretation would be.
I do like the idea of 'living free of Government' , I think a lot of people are attracted to that idea, but
a successfully functioning society is complex.
I may have already mentioned this here, but a guy with a 1000 acres or so depending on area, that is a
survivalist would do fine without a government , maybe even raise a family, but when we start
adding more families and begin to interface with the rest of the immediate world, things tend
to 'look' quite a bit more complex once again.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Assuming God is the only one that is allowed to make life and death decisions.

That assumption is well worth considering as a true ethical norm. However, one need not hold to that particular norm to be an anarchist.

Ancient Israel, under the Mosaic law, was to be a nation without rulers for centuries until it backslid into monarchy, which the law regulated but did not require. But it still had the death penalty for many crimes.

I tend to think that Christ points us to a higher moral law that supersedes that, and in which the death penalty is either excluded altogether, or at least greatly diminished in its applicability. But it's not my anarchism that compels me to think that.

 

[Stratovarious]

That assumption is well worth considering as a true ethical norm. However, one need not hold to that particular norm to be an anarchist.

Ancient Israel, under the Mosaic law, was to be a nation without rulers for centuries until it backslid into monarchy, which the law regulated but did not require. But it still had the death penalty for many crimes.

I tend to think that Christ points us to a higher moral law that supersedes that, and in which the death penalty is either excluded altogether, or at least greatly diminished in its applicability. But it's not my anarchism that compels me to think that.

I've probably never even looked up anarchy or anarchism , since it has become something
that everyone already knows or thought we knew the definition of.

To most of us it is a generic term for complete chaos of course, but I can see that the pure
or original meaning is something quite different.
I'm guessing government interests looked after by CIA* and other groups have made sure
that Anarchism is never understood by the masses that the concept as I see it is
freedom in its purest form.
That is not to say that I believe it is practical in an instant , but that it should be understood
and taught so all' can get a deeper understanding of the difference between freedom and what
we think is freedom here in the US.
*What I'm trying to say is that the CIA has likely done a hell of a lot of co opting and
infiltration as well as agent provocateur false flags in order to project the concept
as horrible evil.

 

[Origanalist]

I've probably never even looked up anarchy or anarchism , since it has become something
that everyone already knows or thought we knew the definition of.

To most of us it is a generic term for complete chaos of course, but I can see that the pure
or original meaning is something quite different.
I'm guessing government interests looked after by CIA* and other groups have made sure
that Anarchism is never understood by the masses that the concept as I see it is
freedom in its purest form.
That is not to say that I believe it is practical in an instant , but that it should be understood
and taught so all' can get a deeper understanding of the difference between freedom and what
we think is freedom here in the US.
*What I'm trying to say is that the CIA has likely done a hell of a lot of co opting and
infiltration as well as agent provocateur false flags in order to project the concept
as horrible evil.

The CIA has no need to do so. People are already scared shitless of the whole concept, including a majority here. Government has done it's job well from kindergarten on.

 

[Working Poor]

I tend to think that Christ points us to a higher moral law that supersedes that, and in which the death penalty is either excluded altogether, or at least greatly diminished in its applicability. But it's not my anarchism that compels me to think that.

I totally think anarchy supports eliminating or strongly limiting the death penalty. But I can see where an individual could be banished from group living and some how marked so everyone could be informed that the person has murdered or caused harm to someone's property without remorse. However, the possibility of redemption and restorartion could be considered. If Jesus can forgive it I am also in favor of it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The CIA has no need to do so. People are already scared shitless of the whole concept, including a majority here. Government has done it's job well from kindergarten on.

Since the Haymarket Bombing, the anti-anarchist propaganda has been very effective. Gov'ment skooling makes it even worse. #kurwa