What I’m saying is that there’s a body of law that allows individuals to exercise their rights to own property, to make contracts, to establish trusts and corporations and so on and so forth. Quite a lot of this is “equity” as interpreted by the “court of chancery.”
But if an anarchist communist state is established, there won’t be a court of chancery. There won’t be an entity that holds certain types of contracts to be be something other than absolute bullshit. If you “own” a piece of property that you aren’t actively using, and some squatters move in, who will hold the squatter’s right to house themselves to be in conflict with, and subservient to your right to “own” property.
yeah, but my point was that if there is no state infrastructure what would prevent someone from arriving somewhere and claiming some piece of land as their property, then selling or renting this land to someone else, and enforcing such a contract as they see fit? such a system only works if everyone magically agrees to it, which ain’t gonna happen.
Enforce it how? There won’t be police to back up your claim and sure you and a renter can claim you own that land but that means nothing if the wider community disagrees and refuses to respect your claim.
If there’s no state police force then it would be pretty easy to set up your own one, and they’d answer only to you. The whole thing would descend into Mad Max pretty quickly.
Not having a police force is not the same as not having a community that frowns upon crimes and tries to deal with them. Crimes in the post-police world aren’t really solved that much any differently then back when law enforcement was done by unpaid elected officials. “Preventative” police…aren’t, most of the time. Police react to crimes after the fact 99% of the time and don’t do much that couldn’t be done by people not given protection from prosecution for violence no other job can get away with and mental separation from 'civillians".
Not sure what relevance this has to the fact that without a state mafia like gangs would quickly spring up everywhere, eventually becoming a defacto state until some other state comes along to overthrow them.
Except there are plenty of cultures that didn’t have that “state mafia” or even much of a state in the modern sense and still avoided that problem. Pretty much every nomadic culture, the pre-european-contact pacific islanders, arguably the peoples of Zomia…
historically pacific islanders tended to be very isolated self sufficient communities, many islands didn’t even trade with one another much. don’t see how such an isolated society could possibly work as a model for society in the modern world. and the example of the easter islanders doesn’t help your case much either, once resource scarcity became an issue things descended pretty quickly into brutality.
what other examples? edit: you must have edited your post after I replied
are you suggesting we all abandon the modern trappings of life and return to our nomadic roots? not sure how well that would go down generally, don’t think I’d be a fan. what are you going to do with people who don’t want to play along?
oh, and a whole lot of native north and south American cultures. Not that they didn’t have their own brutal wars, but things didn’t descend into as much chaos as you seem to think societies in that situation.
All I’m trying to get at is that the European concept of police as ‘the thing keeping society from collapsing’ is incorrect and honestly that’s never been the purpose of police forces. It’s to force workers who felt the need to steal to get by to work within the wage system because that’s seemingly easier than just treating your workers decently.
native cultures are also often viewed with ridiculously rose tinted glasses, even if it were possible to go back to that kind of culture (outside of small isolated groups), I don’t think it would be a good idea for many many reasons.
EDIT: maybe this should be split off into it’s own thread at this point.
I’m not saying we should go that far, I’m saying western cultures’ idea that you need state-sponsored police for a society to function isn’t true, as evidenced by cultures that did just as well if not better in some ways than European contemporaries even though they lacked that.
just because it may have worked in the past (and it’s debatable how well it even worked then) is no guarantee it would even come close to working today, given the technological and social realities of the modern world. I can’t see it ending any other way than horrendously, at least in the near-medium term, who knows what possibilities will open up in the distant future. what’s to stop some roving band of islamic fundamentalists showing up and stealing all your stuff for example (and one can easily think up any number of other nasty scenarios pretty easily given the local conditions available)?
A mutual aid arrangement with other people in your community facing the same problem is how that kind of attack was handled pre-police, and how many leftist anarchists propose we handle that. You live in a place, you help defend it.
You’re assuming a.) your side can’t get the same things, and b.) that those are impossible to fight off with ‘lesser’ weapons. Look at how effective having bigger and better guns and rocket launchers worked out for the U.S. military in Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea…
I’m not assuming anything, you can have the same things, and you can attempt to fight off or otherwise protect things as you see fit (though already this is sounding like a mini-statelet). That’s no guarantee you’d be successful though, and it’s not really an ideal situation to have in the first place, when you could’ve just started off with the security a genuine state could’ve provided in the first place.
I tend to give all of these politicians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to word choices, phrasing choices, and the like. These people are speaking CONSTANTLY. Gotta cut them all some slack. I try really hard to listen to the overall message not get worked up about one or two sentences. I did that with her “super predators” comment and I did that the other night with Bernie’s ghetto comment.
And “Excuse me I’m talking” is newsworthy??? The guy was probably tired of debate after debate of her being allowed more talk time (not really her fault - that’s the moderators) and it’s hard to get one’s point across when the other person is right there ready to jump in constantly. He could have said “Excuse me, let me finish first” or “Excuse me, I’m almost done” or “Excuse me, please if you could be so kind to allow me to finish”. It’s not like he told her to shut her pie hole.
After the surprising results in the Michigan democratic primary, whatever Bernie did he will continue to do. People keep making the claim that Hillary is adopting Bernie’s economic talking points on the campaign trail and in the debates.
Bernie has adopted three of Hillary’s main political talking points in recent weeks, on the campaign trail and in recent democratic presidential debates. Bernie has started to acknowledge the economic success America has experienced during the administration of President Obama, acknowledge how far America has come during the administration of President Obama. Bernie has also started to finally acknowledge that President Obama has faced unprecedented republican obstruction during his administration.
Bernie’s change is one reason why he had more success with the African-American vote in Michigan. Bernie double downed on his acknowledgement, recognition and defense of President Obama in the last CNN/Univision democratic presidential debate.
Bernie underestimated the support and respect the African-American community in the south had for President Obama. Bernie’s new found acknowledgment, recognition and defense of President Obama will play better with the African-American voting electorate.
Despite the fact that Hillary won more delegates this past Tuesday, winning in Mississippi and coming close in Michigan, still holding a substantial lead in the popular vote and delegate count over Bernie–Michigan’s outcome and Bernie’s change in talking points should not be underestimated.
Every vote counts, every precinct counts, every state counts, every U.S. territory counts–and every elected delegate and super delegate counts. The race to the democratic presidential nomination is about winning the needed 2,383 delegates needed to secure the democratic presidential nomination.
