Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

10

83843984398 wrote (edited )

George W. Bush.

Everyone who killed civilians with drone strikes should be punished in it and forgiven only if the family of the civilian's victim so decides (or he can pay blood money as an alternative if the family so wishes). Anyone from Daesh who killed a civilian should be held accountable with the same procedures.

-3

[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )

1

sudo wrote

Those who have not fought on the front lines themselves have no right to command others to.

That's a bad idea. To be a general, you need a good understanding of military strategy. If we choose the most successful soldiers to become generals, they will have a good understanding of tactics, but they probably won't know much about strategy. Plus, they may not even know that much about tactics - they may have just survived because they're lucky. More people will die if you do that.

-5

nishi_jochiro wrote (edited )

Hey Napoleon and many other great leaders throughout history fought on the front lines with their troops! To be a general you need to work your way up the ranks and at some point you should fight on the battlefield.

1

GrimWillow wrote

What is so great about Napoleon? I dislike vertically organized structures even in a military sense. Who ends up weilding any hierchical structure? Some fucking asshole like Napoleon.

I think we've got to shed ourselves of the authoritarian styles that are susceptable to corruption and embrace a new, respectful, way of fighting, struggling, and defending against the violent circus.

5

zorblax wrote

crimes against humanity, like genocide or particularly severe war crimes, I think deserve the death penalty.

4

alqm wrote (edited )

Perhaps the anarchy principle is not compatible with making such a choice for another person (choosing one to die). If, for instance, there's someone attacking people, they will organize and defend themselves. It will be up to the attacker to recognize his mistakes. People can try to talk to him and help him solve whatever is driving his anger.

But I couldn't think of a way to close the loop of this problem. The attacker could be a little mentally ill and continue attempting to harm people, no matter what is said. I don't know everything, but applying raw anarchist views to the matter gives us a system like I described.

EDIT: Creating a justice system doesn't seem right, as it would open ways for corruption and manipulation of rules. Rules in general are a bad thing to have in an anarchist society. It must come from the people, naturally. If not, something could be wrong there.

4

tnstaec wrote

Is there any scenario where judicial murder makes sense?

ftfy

1

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

So what are the alternatives?

2

________deleted wrote (edited )

Deport them to Mars? Then they can build cities up there.

But more down to earth, just give rapists/murderers/war criminals face tattoos so everyone knows to shun them.

4

zod wrote

But more down to earth, just give rapists/murderers/war criminals face tattoos so everyone knows to shun them.

If you did that, the person would have to either live alone away from civilisation, or live with other murderer-rapists, in what would quickly turn into a murderer/rapist village.

In both cases, what happens when travelers inadvertently bump into these people? There's no longer a safe society to stop them from hurting people.

0

alqm wrote

By the way, did you notice someone abusing the "downvote" just now? That feels like irrational hate to me. The abuser downvoted everyone here.

3

Enkara wrote (edited )

I am against states having the power to murder people or imprison them.

I feel OK about some theoretical anarchist community killing someone off, or pardoning someone who did it autonomously to someone who needed a killing.

2

alqm wrote (edited )

I know what you mean. I just worry that the "needed a killing" gets bended/manipulated to achieve an end that benefit someone. Something like that, you get what I mean? Alienation or some smart ass making people's minds.

6

Enkara wrote

Yeah I get you...

I think some of us fall into the trap of trying to devise a perfect society though, I've thought about it a lot and never came up with a solution I was completely satisfied by.

Of course I think we should strive to build a society where violence/"crime" is as rare as possible, but a lot of times for instance, when anarchists are asked what to do with rapists/murderers/etc the response tends to be some adorable variant of "Oh we'll rehab them, everything will be fine, there will magically be zero violent crime and absolute human justice, teehee!" which I think is kind of unrealistic.

I'm sure that the "needed a killing" defense will get abused and will be imperfect, but I think the alternatives are less desirable.

2

alqm wrote

The important is to keep thinking. We humans are not meant to stagnate on one thing. We're explorers. We're learners.

-2

nishi_jochiro wrote

In an extreme individualist system like anarchy there will always be crime and murder because everyone is always thinking about themselves and not the collective group. A good example of a society in which (at a day to day level) everyone considers the collective group is modern Japan. There are stories of people visiting japan leaving their $2000 bike on the street in the middle of the city then coming back 6 years later to find their bike exactly where they had left it. When you leave your wallet on the train it is sure to get back to you. The streets are spotless because no one litters. The list goes on but I'm sure you get my point.

2

SpiritOfTito wrote

Crimes against humanity. Theres no way the architects of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. Shouldn't swing

0

sudo wrote

Perhaps if there are so many murderers/rapists that you can't hold them all in prison, you could put the ones that you think are the least likely to be rehabilitated to death. Other than that, I think you should always try to rehabilitate them.

-2

nishi_jochiro wrote

And I bet you know exactly who is the least likely to be rehabilitated. Right?

1

sudo wrote

It's already a fucked up situation, since we have to kill someone. We'd have to take an educated guess. In some situations, it might be obvious.

-1

nishi_jochiro wrote

You know criminals you see in prison are never as bad as those who abuse their power then blame it on the average voter. "Well you are the one who voted for me" they say and guess what they are right. Anyways if anyone should deserve to be killed its those who have contributed nothing whose decisions have caused many pain and suffering.