No. We do not need cops. The police will always be a corrupt hand of state violence. As long as there are cops (as in special people who are allowed to use violence) in any form they will ultimately become corrupt. As long as law is enforced it is not equal, and it will never protect “the people”. The people are the only ones that can protect “the people”. You don’t need cops, you need everyone to start policing people around them. That is the only way everyone gets protection.
They should perhaps form a sort of democratic system of their representatives (let’s call it totallynotagovernment) that would create and maintain a professional group of people versed in law & order, maybe call this group totallynotpolice …
/s
Seriously, what are you talking about?
What would be the motive to write or follow laws? Or have a monetary system? Would it be better to give all executive power to anyone with more violence?
In this case police is just as corrupt as the gov funding it (but I get it, in case of USA this was the case from the start - poor dudes & dudettes never even knew anything else, even police departments when first established over there were just hired current slave catchers groups).
Police is power from and for the people of the people control it.
Much like with laws, you want a legal system to give power to the people. If it doesn’t do that is barely a legal system, much just an oppression tool of the few (like US police), but at that point its semantics what you call it.
If the gov, legal system, or police opress the people thats is just not a democracy (eg if 3/4 of people support an idea but the gov doesn’t implement it, then thats not democratic, is it?).
Or a non-gov example of the same: western people seem to condemn CEOs as the worst and most brutal dictators … yet somehow forget that it’s the owner class that hires regular workers (CEOs) as their dogs/police/governors.
It’s not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function, it’s who/what they work for.
Anarchy. I’m an anarchist. I’m talking about anarchy. People do not need to be controlled/enforced/governed. We are perfectly capable of organizing a society ourselves. Stopping violence should not be the responsibility of a special group but everyone. Social pressure is more powerful than direct violence. Otherwise the police would not have such a cushy job.
What would be the motive to write or follow laws?
No one needs to write laws. Custom is already a ruleset that most people in a society follow. You don’t need laws on top of that. It’s unnecessary and creates cases where the right thing cannot be done because it’s illegal. Government creates a ton of unnecessary busywork that most people do not need to concern themselves with. What does the government do that you couldn’t do with free association and an empowered populus?
Do you follow laws just because you’re afraid of the police? Or is it because of the social pressure to not cause a fuss. Do you need rules to be written down on a piece of paper for you to follow them? I think not. I’ve followed a lot of “made up” rules because I understand these rules make my life better. Human beings are capable of working together without needing someone else to tell them how to live their life. We did it for millennia before archy clawed it’s way into every society (by colonizing the anarchic ones because they were “primitive”)
It’s not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function
Yes it is. You cannot have police that doesn’t abuse their power. If you have a position in society that gives people power, It’s the power-hungry that fill them. Everyone that doesn’t want to dictate other peoples lives will not fill those positions. so sooner or later they are going to be filled by people who want power and nothing else. It’s no coincidence archy keeps devolving into fascism and totalitarianism. It’s inevitable. Society elevates people who want power so you end up with people who believe they are god and can do no wrong.
Just as with other systems, in anarchy, you control the lesser power (individual) with a bigger power (the “ourselves”).
Its just less formalised. And having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs requires everyone to have the same customs … or there are disputes, that form sides which organise into wars. And well, social pressure doesn’t really work well when an outside force attacks you (like another nation/kingdom/corporation/family/etc). It’s not like humans didn’t arise from more anarchist structures.
And no, I don’t follow laws because in affair of the police (or other legal deterrent), but bcs Im pretty sure if someone attacks me/robs me I will be waiting a long time for townspeople to notice, form a mob, investigate, exert social pressure, get things back in order etc.
But I’m not really afraid to “cause a fuss”, society doesn’t give two shits about individual behaviour in general, and even seems to worship the ones that go counter social pressure and intentionally defy customs for their personal gain.
Also customs and social status is often dictated by the powerful. With economic systems without any administration (so no money) that means whoever owns the most stuff or is a better “politician” speaker/entertainer.
And I think you can have police that doesn’t abuse their power as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power - and here I agree, social pressure is the power (I just called it ‘more democratic’, but same thing).
What does the government do that you couldn’t do with free association and an empowered populus?
Imo: form specialised panels that need funding, write rules of commerce (not to disrupt the commune, which I’m all for, but for the intra-commune relationships to prevent at least some wars), plan projects via gathering data, even just keep up with regular basic administration such as stock supplies, writing minutes, etc).
anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose “collectivism” and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them.
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life
Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its ideas of “absolute” freedom of the individual which is constrained by others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists and grows.
In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics.
The link goes into more detail.
It’s not like humans didn’t arise from more anarchist structures.
A Definition for a term I’m about to use:
Archy - Hierarchy, Rule, structure of command and subordination, opposite of anarchy.
How did humans “rise” from anarchist structures? I wouldn’t call whats going on right now any better than the pre-archic societies. Those societies were destroyed because they didn’t have the structures to protect themselves against archy anarchy isn’t just no archy, it’s conscious opposition to archy. Now that we understand archic structures and their influence we can start opposing it. Pre-archic societies couldn’t
having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs
Why would you need mobs? often times a single other person would be enough to stop/deter anti-social behavior.
as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power
Who controls that bigger power and what’s stopping them from becoming corrupt? There is no bigger power than the state and police is the state. You can’t have anything bigger. As soon as you have representative democracy the people will go from humans to a resource. They will be grown and molded to not care about their society and just root for their team. Governance isn’t something you can delegate to others. It makes you lazy and means you will stop thinking about the actual problems and start fighting with anyone who disagrees with you.
Representational democracy does not work. The state is a living system that has interests of it’s own and those will always be prioritized over the citizens. Sooner or later every state devolves into authoritarianism. All the while screwing over anyone who wants to live without it.
No. We do not need cops. The police will always be a corrupt hand of state violence. As long as there are cops (as in special people who are allowed to use violence) in any form they will ultimately become corrupt. As long as law is enforced it is not equal, and it will never protect “the people”. The people are the only ones that can protect “the people”. You don’t need cops, you need everyone to start policing people around them. That is the only way everyone gets protection.
ACAB! All power to all the people!
I’m surprised that an anarchist position is getting downvoted in this community. I guess the libs came to party.
Yes, people will govern & police themselves!!
They should perhaps form a sort of democratic system of their representatives (let’s call it totallynotagovernment) that would create and maintain a professional group of people versed in law & order, maybe call this group totallynotpolice …
/s
Seriously, what are you talking about?
What would be the motive to write or follow laws? Or have a monetary system? Would it be better to give all executive power to anyone with more violence?
In this case police is just as corrupt as the gov funding it (but I get it, in case of USA this was the case from the start - poor dudes & dudettes never even knew anything else, even police departments when first established over there were just hired current slave catchers groups).
Police is power from and for the people of the people control it.
Much like with laws, you want a legal system to give power to the people. If it doesn’t do that is barely a legal system, much just an oppression tool of the few (like US police), but at that point its semantics what you call it.
If the gov, legal system, or police opress the people thats is just not a democracy (eg if 3/4 of people support an idea but the gov doesn’t implement it, then thats not democratic, is it?).
Or a non-gov example of the same: western people seem to condemn CEOs as the worst and most brutal dictators … yet somehow forget that it’s the owner class that hires regular workers (CEOs) as their dogs/police/governors.
It’s not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function, it’s who/what they work for.
It seems you have a very limited undertanding of a state or a stateless socitey.
Maybe this page can help you out a bit
Also https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-manifesto-for-the-abolition-of-the-police though I doubt they’ll read any of either…
I will so thank you!
Np :)
I didn’t know that one yet. Thank you. (:
That library seems endless, always new info to discover!
Anarchy. I’m an anarchist. I’m talking about anarchy. People do not need to be controlled/enforced/governed. We are perfectly capable of organizing a society ourselves. Stopping violence should not be the responsibility of a special group but everyone. Social pressure is more powerful than direct violence. Otherwise the police would not have such a cushy job.
No one needs to write laws. Custom is already a ruleset that most people in a society follow. You don’t need laws on top of that. It’s unnecessary and creates cases where the right thing cannot be done because it’s illegal. Government creates a ton of unnecessary busywork that most people do not need to concern themselves with. What does the government do that you couldn’t do with free association and an empowered populus?
Do you follow laws just because you’re afraid of the police? Or is it because of the social pressure to not cause a fuss. Do you need rules to be written down on a piece of paper for you to follow them? I think not. I’ve followed a lot of “made up” rules because I understand these rules make my life better. Human beings are capable of working together without needing someone else to tell them how to live their life. We did it for millennia before archy clawed it’s way into every society (by colonizing the anarchic ones because they were “primitive”)
Yes it is. You cannot have police that doesn’t abuse their power. If you have a position in society that gives people power, It’s the power-hungry that fill them. Everyone that doesn’t want to dictate other peoples lives will not fill those positions. so sooner or later they are going to be filled by people who want power and nothing else. It’s no coincidence archy keeps devolving into fascism and totalitarianism. It’s inevitable. Society elevates people who want power so you end up with people who believe they are god and can do no wrong.
Just as with other systems, in anarchy, you control the lesser power (individual) with a bigger power (the “ourselves”).
Its just less formalised. And having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs requires everyone to have the same customs … or there are disputes, that form sides which organise into wars. And well, social pressure doesn’t really work well when an outside force attacks you (like another nation/kingdom/corporation/family/etc). It’s not like humans didn’t arise from more anarchist structures.
And no, I don’t follow laws because in affair of the police (or other legal deterrent), but bcs Im pretty sure if someone attacks me/robs me I will be waiting a long time for townspeople to notice, form a mob, investigate, exert social pressure, get things back in order etc.
But I’m not really afraid to “cause a fuss”, society doesn’t give two shits about individual behaviour in general, and even seems to worship the ones that go counter social pressure and intentionally defy customs for their personal gain.
Also customs and social status is often dictated by the powerful. With economic systems without any administration (so no money) that means whoever owns the most stuff or is a better
“politician”speaker/entertainer.And I think you can have police that doesn’t abuse their power as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power - and here I agree, social pressure is the power (I just called it ‘more democratic’, but same thing).
Imo: form specialised panels that need funding, write rules of commerce (not to disrupt the commune, which I’m all for, but for the intra-commune relationships to prevent at least some wars), plan projects via gathering data, even just keep up with regular basic administration such as stock supplies, writing minutes, etc).
to quote: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca213
The link goes into more detail.
A Definition for a term I’m about to use:
Archy - Hierarchy, Rule, structure of command and subordination, opposite of anarchy.
How did humans “rise” from anarchist structures? I wouldn’t call whats going on right now any better than the pre-archic societies. Those societies were destroyed because they didn’t have the structures to protect themselves against archy anarchy isn’t just no archy, it’s conscious opposition to archy. Now that we understand archic structures and their influence we can start opposing it. Pre-archic societies couldn’t
Why would you need mobs? often times a single other person would be enough to stop/deter anti-social behavior.
Who controls that bigger power and what’s stopping them from becoming corrupt? There is no bigger power than the state and police is the state. You can’t have anything bigger. As soon as you have representative democracy the people will go from humans to a resource. They will be grown and molded to not care about their society and just root for their team. Governance isn’t something you can delegate to others. It makes you lazy and means you will stop thinking about the actual problems and start fighting with anyone who disagrees with you.
Representational democracy does not work. The state is a living system that has interests of it’s own and those will always be prioritized over the citizens. Sooner or later every state devolves into authoritarianism. All the while screwing over anyone who wants to live without it.