4chan archive /lit/ (index)
similar threads
2012-09-12 09:18 2974892 Anonymous (Amy-Casey7.jpg 550x406 54kB)
/Lit/, I'm argumenting with my wife. If there was anarchy, would there be people in prisons?

1 min later 2974894 Anonymous
yes, just not state run prisons. More like basement sex dungeons.

1 min later 2974895 Anonymous
Yes

2 min later 2974897 Anonymous
>>2974894 So they'd be just like American prisons?

3 min later 2974900 Anonymous
>>2974892 It depends on the type of anarchy. But a 'state' with no rulers couldn't imprison criminals or enforce laws, it would be up to the people.

4 min later 2974902 Anonymous
>>2974897 Well they'd probably be less gay, and have more 13 year old girl inmates.

5 min later 2974903 Anonymous
>>2974900 are you implying police are the rulers of the state?

6 min later 2974906 Anonymous
>Noun: A building to which people are legally committed as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial. nothing legal or illegal in anarchy. nothing to be considered a crime in pure anarchy. so no. the answer is no on a technicality. they can be detained by someone against their will but that isn't a prison system.

7 min later 2974908 Anonymous
>If there was anarchy What exactly do you mean by that? There's no way to answer this question without going into specifics what kind of system you're talking about here.

7 min later 2974909 Anonymous
>argumenting

7 min later 2974910 Anonymous
>>2974903 Police are owned by the state, and enforce rules created by the state.

10 min later 2974919 Anonymous
>>2974910 yes, but none of that requires the presence of a ruler.

11 min later 2974922 Anonymous
>>2974906 >Noun: any place of confinement or involuntary restraint. So yes.

11 min later 2974923 Anonymous
Yeah, except it would be more like POW camps.

12 min later 2974926 Anonymous (Amy-Casey8.jpg 550x294 34kB)
OP here. Hmnm. Well, wifu argues that the first thing that would happen is that people will unite against "the worst scumbags" and put them in "prison", and that anarchy is over before it even gets started. That anarchy because of this will start getting politicised right away and is a meaningless endeavor.

12 min later 2974928 Anonymous
>>2974923 what the hell is a POW? do you mean enemy combatants?

13 min later 2974929 Anonymous
>>2974919 Of course it does, or at least the impression of a ruler. a large society can't function without hierarchy, and someone will always need to be above police and military.

14 min later 2974930 Anonymous
>>2974926 That's stupid, history tells us it was millennia before people decided to start using prisons. For most of history they just stoned people to death or otherwise shamed or tortured them.

14 min later 2974932 Anonymous
>>2974919 Of course it does, or at least the impression of a ruler does. a large society can't function without hierarchy, and someone will always need to be above police and military.

15 min later 2974937 Anonymous
>>2974932 >and someone will always need to be above police and military. Why? why not just have a whole bunch of people to their side.

18 min later 2974942 Anonymous
>>2974926 So she thinks they will form a hierarchical system, and a rudimentary legal system, thereby elevating them from a state of pure anarchy into one of governance. How many people live in this fictional state? If the numbers are low (less than 100, and possibly less than 1000) they could quite easily live in a working state of pure anarchy.

18 min later 2974944 Anonymous
OP, anarchy is not without rules only rulers. The only people who could lawfully be sent to prison in an anarchist society are those that imposed force on another person or group without their consent.

19 min later 2974945 Anonymous
>>2974928 Good guess, yeah.

19 min later 2974946 Anonymous
>>2974944 AKA governed over them.

21 min later 2974952 Anonymous
>>2974922 mine was from google dictionary. also freedictionary says lawful detention. did you make your definition up on the fly? it's pretty good.

22 min later 2974953 Anonymous
>>2974944 but isn't sending someone to prison itself an imposition of force on them without their consent?

23 min later 2974957 Anonymous
Yes, but they would be prisons created by militias and groups of people with sufficient ego and self-righteousness to convince themselves that they have the right to judge others. Anarchy can never exist for any extended period of time.

23 min later 2974958 Anonymous
>>2974952 dictionary.com, as for freedictionary, check entry number 2.

25 min later 2974960 Anonymous
>>2974953 yeah but it's lawful. you don't get sent to prison willy nilly. you do shit that earns you a ticket there unless the jury made a mistake. get serious, plz.

26 min later 2974962 Anonymous
>>2974958 touché

30 min later 2974966 Anonymous
>>2974960 where does the law stem from?

31 min later 2974969 Anonymous
>>2974966 illuminati, dumbass. don't you know anything?

31 min later 2974970 Anonymous
>>2974953 It's a neccisary defense against being unlawful force. You're giving up your own rights when you take the rights of others.

32 min later 2974971 Anonymous
>>2974960 I think he means in a state of anarchy, with a system of conduct based on civil agreement, not imposed laws.

32 min later 2974972 Anonymous (Amy-Casey4.jpg 550x388 27kB)
>>2974930 >>2974942 an anarchy in the current society or maybe postapocalyptic, with the institutions and cities available and people with the knowledge that we have today. >>2974944 Hmm, that changes things.

32 min later 2974974 Anonymous
>>2974970 they're not really rights then.

33 min later 2974975 Anonymous
>>2974970 *against unlawful force

38 min later 2974981 Anonymous
>>2974974 How so?

41 min later 2974985 Anonymous
>>2974981 because how is a right a right if someone can take it from you?

43 min later 2974988 Anonymous
>>2974985 Anything can be taken from you. Anything. By your definition, there is no such thing as a right.

44 min later 2974989 Anonymous
>>2974985 circular logic. if you don't let me take someone else's freedoms away, you don't believe in freedom. i smell your bullshit from a mile away.

45 min later 2974991 Anonymous
>>2974985 Isn't the whole point of anarchy that government takes/infringes on people's rights?

46 min later 2974994 Anonymous
>>2974991 Yeah, sort of.A government is immoral because it is imposed without consent.

51 min later 2974998 Anonymous
>>2974994 that's why our sense of democracy in government is supposed to be an expression of freedom. because it is managed collectively through supposed elections.

52 min later 2975000 Anonymous
Op's wife here. You guys....... The funny thing is that even in your arguments you imply anarchy as a governmental. You start politicizing anarchy in your argumentation to make it work, see?

54 min later 2975003 Anonymous
>>2975000 Exactly, you dumb fucking chit. Anarchy, as I've stated previously in this thread, never last long. Equilibrium always reasserts itself.

54 min later 2975005 Anonymous
>>2974909 >>2974908 These. Seriously, if anyone attempts to answer this question without OP elaborating I'll assume their ignorance.

54 min later 2975006 Anonymous
>>2975000 depends on your definition for prison. if prisons are part of a legal system then no to op's question. if prisons are anywhere people can be detained for any reason whatsoever then the answer is yes to op's question.

55 min later 2975008 Anonymous
>>2975003 *lasts

56 min later 2975011 Anonymous
>>2975000 As I've said, Rule without Rulers. It's not governmental if theirs no coercion.

57 min later 2975014 Anonymous
>>2975003 My retarded boyfriend ok husband haven't shown me your comment. what number is it? I agree with this.

57 min later 2975015 Anonymous
>>2975000 Post your feet please.

58 min later 2975017 Anonymous
>>2975014 It was a sub-point really, in addition to my main point. So It's not entirely unforgivable that it went unnoticed. >>2974957

1 hours later 2975019 Anonymous
>>2975017 Then you at least agree that any form of anarchy as any form of utopia is a ridiculous idea.

1 hours later 2975022 Anonymous
>>2975019 Of course. Anarchy isn't compatible with thinking human beings.

1 hours later 2975025 Anonymous (Amy-Casey3.jpg 550x440 69kB)
>>2975022 /thread

1 hours later 2975029 Anonymous
>>2975022 Unless in a small group. Amazonian tribes would be said to be in a state of anarchy.

1 hours later 2975031 Anonymous
>>2975029 They generally have a leader, or some senior figure, who is deferred to on a wide variety of matters. And they always have a set of laws, regardless of how vague, spares, or otherwise.

1 hours later 2975032 Anonymous
We need to be careful how we're defining anarchy. What most think about anarchy is is that "anyone can do anything they want" which I think is not what true anarchy is. Someone doing what they want and imposing themselves on other people without their consent is a form of government and the only way to keep that from happening is to keep those people from doing that by means of force that is in self defense. So I guess I would define anarchy as the maximization of liberty. Which would require keeping people from imposing themselves upon others.

1 hours later 2975033 Anonymous
>>2975029 Also, it tends not to be anarchy if they're forming 'tribes'.

1 hours later 2975034 Anonymous
>>2975032 A better definition would be the maximisation of negative liberty, but I see your point.

1 hours later 2975044 Anonymous
>>2975032 >Which would require keeping people from imposing themselves upon others. naw. there is no recognition of any authority in anarchy.

1 hours later 2975048 Anonymous
>>2975044 Recognition is not a prerequisite of authority.

1 hours later 2975054 Anonymous
>>2975048 so you'd have a battle of people imposing themselves on others in a race to be the authority to keep other peolpe from imposing on others. sounds like anarchy to me.

1 hours later 2975057 Anonymous
>>2975054 I'm not sure what kind of logic you're using to reach these conclusions, but it's not one I understand. Good luck with whatever it is that's going through your head.

1 hours later 2975059 Anonymous
Kant defines anarchy as "Law And Freedom without Violence/Force". It's a state where lawfulness is maintained without coercion, so there would be no political prisoners. This of course doesn't mean there would be no prisoners at all, it's possible that those imprisoned are legitimately imprisoned and have not been coerced into that state to maintain the status quo.

2 hours later 2975106 Anonymous
>>2975059 > It's a state where lawfulness is maintained without coercion, so there would be no political prisoners. What separates this from democracy? and what would be required to attain it? does the people have to behave, be more civilized, by nature? or can it be achieved by perfecting the system?

2 hours later 2975110 Anonymous
It doesn't matter because a true anarchy is impossible. Humans organize into power structures as an inherent facet of the civilization.

2 hours later 2975113 Anonymous
>>2975106 didn't mean that green text, but your whole comment >>2975059

2 hours later 2975120 Anonymous
>>2975110 Well, that's your assumption. And it seems Kant's definition might allow some power structures in his anarchy.

5 hours later 2975476 Anonymous
>>2975110 Or rather, humans organise into societies as an inherent feature of their primate programming; power-and-control urges also come from the same heritage and lend the familiar structure to human interactions. Under anarchy, anyone would be free to indulge his/her power and dominance attempts without the restraining factor of society, law, etc. On the other hand anyone else would be free to resist or avenge without the same restrictions.

21 hours later 2976799 Anonymous
>>2975032 >What most think about anarchy is is that "anyone can do anything they want" which I think is not what true anarchy is. That's social breakdown (anomie).

21 hours later 2976835 Anonymous
>>2975476 But hasn't history just shown us that eventually laws and societies get built on a larger and larger scale. even if you start again at the beginning with the only law being that of the household, you'll still get back to civilization.

21 hours later 2976842 Anonymous (illustrations-by-matthieu-forichon-part2-7.jpg 600x439 47kB)
I think true anarchy is a romantic idea of a society where you don't have to struggle. I came to earth to fight. To fight for anarchy. If I achieve it, I'll move on.

21 hours later 2976890 Anonymous
>>2975476 >primate programming I don't like this. use something different you pessimist

21 hours later 2976901 Anonymous
>>2975476 >programming what? are you some sort of determinist? >power and dominance attempts does not exist in every human, fuck what your evo psych studies say.

22 hours later 2976938 Anonymous (Woman-Laughing2.jpg 400x400 28kB)
>>2976901 >are you some sort of determinist? >implying free will.

22 hours later 2976959 Anonymous
>>2976842 fight on my hero

22 hours later 2976961 Anonymous
>>2976938 >i'm stupid and belong on /sci/

22 hours later 2976966 Anonymous
>>2975003 AHAHAHAAH >He thinks the government's monopoly on the use of force represents some kind of balance or equilibrium >he implies that this is some kind of "natural order", in that whatever our efforts may be to the contrary we will always return to some form of statism. You're just as bad as the "someone will always fill the power gap" people. In fact, this whole thread is retarded. /lit/, I would have thought better of you.

22 hours later 2976968 Anonymous
>>2976961 Off you go then. >>>/sci/ But I warn you; they will just laugh at you for believing in a magical-soul-conciousness-chakra thing, that grants you free will, and is above scientific analysis.

22 hours later 2976972 Anonymous
>>2976961 Determinism is controversial but as of yet not dismissible. Read up on it before you deny it out of hand.

22 hours later 2976978 Anonymous
>>2976961 >I have a narrow-minded view on free-will and will dismiss anyone suggesting anything contrary to that is a "/sci/fag"

22 hours later 2976980 Anonymous
>>2976968 >autist cant into free will you are obviously new here, /sci/scum

22 hours later 2976982 Anonymous
>>2976978 fuck you, i'm the minority there are so many determinists around here it blows my mind

22 hours later 2976987 Anonymous
>free will doesn't exist tell that to the court >b-but i was determined to rape and kill her! its all a chemical reaction! u dumb christfags science proves me right! >this guy's a sociopath, asperger, and relativity sane >execute him >B-BUT MUH DETERMINISM

22 hours later 2977000 Anonymous
>>2976987 Oh, you poor fool. Just because your actions could have been predicted, doesn't mean that you don't deserve to be locked up. >B-b-ut I must have free will, I-i'm special.

22 hours later 2977003 Anonymous
>>2977000 >implying they can be predicted >"fool" >implying you aren't a pretentious young male >implying i'm not special fuck off with your pseudo-humbleness you sociopath free will exists and that's all there is to it, you fucking new-atheist

22 hours later 2977005 Anonymous
>>2976987 >the belief of the majority makes my theory true! Please shit out more fallacies. >execute him Do you live in a 3rd world country like Texas?

22 hours later 2977024 Anonymous
>>2977005 your beliefs result in nihilism therefore its all invalid thats all there is to it, nihilism. so fuck off, fallacy master

22 hours later 2977028 Anonymous
>>2977003 >implying they can be predicted It wasn't an implication, kid, It was a statement.

22 hours later 2977032 Anonymous
>>2977028 >kid hey, kid, your statement is wrong. deal with it

22 hours later 2977038 Anonymous
>>2977032 Deal with what? The fact that you want to be a special little snow flake, and believe all your actions can't be predicted.

22 hours later 2977042 Anonymous
>>2977024 You sound like a 14 year old. How does free-will exist, oh wise one? So far the only point you've made is the ridiculous "the existence of courts validates my theory." Continue to insult people over the internet attempting to defend your baseless beliefs, I'm sure inflating your own ego is fun.

22 hours later 2977045 Anonymous
>>2977038 Deal with what? The fact that you imply i want to be a special little snow flake, and the fact that you imply all your actions can be predicted. >implying the free will debate is over its much deeper than you think, /sci/tard /thread, i'll be saging with my free will, deal with it you masochist amoral scum

22 hours later 2977047 Anonymous
>>2977042 How does it not? you going to bring up that pathetic neuroscience study again? >implying there is anything wrong with inflating my ego you're a pop-sci reading pleb

22 hours later 2977059 Anonymous
>>2977024 >your beliefs result in nihilism therefore its all invalid Determinism proposes that there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else. This is necessarily true because existence is the ability to have affect upon something else which means that all things must also be affected by something else. The end result is determinism. Science presumes determinism, because if it presumed that anything can occur without cause, that one thing would potentially effect all other things making physical reality impossible.

22 hours later 2977070 Anonymous
>>2977059 thats a shitty argument i'd rather believe what the scholars have to say

22 hours later 2977071 Anonymous (189566_10151130556104628_341932692_n.jpg 510x720 92kB)
>mfw I don't even care about prisons in our system

23 hours later 2977079 Anonymous
>>2977070 >i'd rather believe what the scholars have to say And that's the problem. You are blind to any sense because 'you would rather believe' in something else.

23 hours later 2977083 Anonymous
>>2977079 >problems existing in a nihilist world

23 hours later 2977107 Anonymous
>>2977083 You have yet to explain how you are getting effect without cause.

23 hours later 2977115 Anonymous
>>2977107 >implying there is a cause for everything you're one of those "selfish gene" types, aren't you?

23 hours later 2977144 Anonymous
>>2977115 Are you not capable of mounting an argument? So far you have said: >you're one of those "selfish gene" types, aren't you? >you're a pop-sci reading pleb >you masochist amoral scum >/sci/tard >fuck off, fallacy master >you fucking new-atheist >/sci/scum

23 hours later 2977160 Anonymous
>>2977144 you're autistic fuck you

23 hours later 2977185 Anonymous
>>2974892 >If there was anarchy, would there be people in prisons? I think prisons are quite logically normal... For example. >Have large community. >Slimy Joe starts raping everybody and everything. >People getting tired of being raped. Wat do? Kill him, Imprison him or cut his dick off. >Depending on what type of anarchist community you're in, one of those will probably happen. >If the community is civilized, then they'll probably construct a structure to hold Joe until he stops raping or he's dead. >If the community is like mad max, he'll have no dick. >If the community is like doomsday, he'll be eaten.

23 hours later 2977229 Anonymous
>>2977185 >Slimy Joe starts raping everybody and everything. What about a smaller society? Do you remember Lara Logan, the south African reporter? She was raped by 100 guys in Egypt. Obviously those 100 guys are 'bad' because the majority of the world considers them 'bad', but what if society was limited to 150 people... Hang on I have a better example. There is an island in the Bay of Bengal called North Sentinel Island, with a rather large tribe living on it(300 people). India has officially ruled that they are to be left alone, so they function completely independent of the rest of the world. Now, does our notion of ethics apply to them? Do we judge their actions by what we believe to be objective morality? Perhaps they are functioning in an anarchistic structure, with no real leader (doubtful, but potentially true) and tribal 'Joe' decides to go on a raping spree, should they punish him because we regard it as wrong? What if they regard women as inferior, and the act of rape acceptable?

23 hours later 2977241 Anonymous (just cause.jpg 388x600 104kB)
>>2977229 We force our morality on them and free the shit out of those women. Why? because fuck you.

23 hours later 2977246 Anonymous
>>2977241 This is not a hypothetical island, it's real. And no, we can't free them or force our morality on them, there is a law protecting them from us.

24 hours later 2977266 Anonymous (special-forces-beard.jpg 600x480 124kB)
>>2977246 >there is a law And?

24 hours later 2977303 Anonymous
>>2977266 And you are under arrest.

1.894 0.189