Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Reply to comment by Pash in Law and violence ≠ state by Pash

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of police, then you don't want to get rid of police.

If you want an established territory to have laws, you want a legal system as well as borders.

If you want borders and laws as well as people to enforce them, you want a state.

4

Pash OP wrote (edited )

Well what would you say is the main function of police? I was asked and I answered.

Nobody mentioned borders or territory.

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of police, then you don't want to get rid of police.

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of SUVs (i.e. transport), then you don't want to get rid of SUVs.

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of factory farms (i.e. producing food), then you don't want to get rid of factory farms.

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of Kardashians (i.e. sex tapes), then you don't want to get rid of Kardashians.

0

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

We're agreed on the main function of police; I even said you were correct when you answered me.

The real difference is that I don't want anything to have that function.

Nobody mentioned borders or territory.

You don't have to mention anything, you didn't object to my comment about how large, sedentary societies mutate into states with anything to imply that you didn't want a sedentary society. And since your whole back and forth with ziq really started because of your query about railways, one could reasonably deduce that you're thinking primarily about sedentary societies because those are the only types to build, maintain, operate, and use railways. And a sedentary society with laws and law enforcement has de facto established territory/borders by virtue of the fact that the reach of a set of laws and that law enforcement doesn't extend to every corner of the world.

EDIT:

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of SUVs (i.e. transport), then you don't want to get rid of SUVs.

I want to get rid vehicular transport.

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of factory farms (i.e. producing food), then you don't want to get rid of factory farms.

There are other reasons to want to get rid of factory forms that have nothing to do with them producing food.

If you want to keep what you consider to be the main function of Kardashians (i.e. sex tapes), then you don't want to get rid of Kardashians.

Pretty weird and gross of you to designate a group of human beings the main function of making sex tapes by virtue of sharing a name, but okay.

4

Pash OP wrote (edited )

You don't have to mention anything, you didn't object to my comment about how large, sedentary societies mutate into states with anything to imply that you didn't want a sedentary society.

What I want is irrelevant; it's not like I'm some magic-wand-waver who can create entire societies by wishing.

Most societies have been patchworks of sedentism and nomadism. In North America, you find nomadic hunting tribes and sedentary people of the corn, and these two trade and intermarry. (Sedentary-in-winter-nomadic-in-summer is a pretty common pattern too.)

And since your whole back and forth with ziq really started because of your query about railways

The railways were an example; it was a query about coördinated action.

2

Pash OP wrote

The real difference is that I don't want anything to have that function.

You want zero defense from murderers and thieves? I don't believe you.

1

OdiousOutlaw wrote

You need a group of people to enforce laws to defend you from murderers and thieves?

I've never need laws for self defense.

I don't need law enforcement for it either.

3

Pash OP wrote

Ok, we're on the same page then.

0

OdiousOutlaw wrote

Take the two contemporary examples: the Zapatista autonomous region and Rojava. They both are pretty heavily armed and enforce their social norms with community councils.

Not if you agree with this.

3

Pash OP wrote

The Zapatista community councils are randomly selected by lot from the community; I'm not sure about Rojava.

0

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

I'm an anarchist.

Why should the democratic methods of granting power from a territory that has explicitly stated that they are not anarchists sway me?

3

Pash OP wrote

idgaf about labels

The key distinction is whether enforcement is done by a specialised class or mutually.

1

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

idgaf about labels

If a group of people explicitly state that they don't share the same values that I do, then I have no reason to care about how they organize themselves.

The key distinction is whether enforcement is done by a specialised class or mutually.

Doesn't matter in either case, enforcing laws and social norms makes you cop.

If you can't see the difference between enforcing laws/social norms and exercising self defense, then we have nothing to talk about.

3