• AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    25 days ago

    …so, what, we’re supposed to build an entire society on people’s inherent willingness to help each other and just trust that crime will stop happening?

    Like mate, I hate to break it to you, but psychopaths exist. The entire problem with capitalism is that some people are never satisfied no matter how much they have and will do anything they possibly can to hoard anything that could give them an advantage at the expense of the group.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      24 days ago

      Its true, the things that stop crime can only ever be made by a state.

      In fact, people never managed to stop or punish theft or a murder until we invesnted states.

      Yup, before states, if someone came a murdered your friend you had to trust that what you just witnessed didn’t happen because there was literally nothing you could do about it, as states hadn’t been invented yet.

      Its good thing were too smart to fall for that…

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        24 days ago

        …and your proposed alternative is…?

        I really, really hope I don’t have to explain why vigilante justice is a bad idea.

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          I heard him say he murdered his friend.

          Pity there is no third party to investigate my claim. We’ll just have to string him up ourselves.

          I call dibs on his shoes.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 days ago

            Well, in a society without judges, as the article linked proposes, I’m having a hard time seeing it any other way.

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          24 days ago

          Lol nice try but I don’t have to provide you with an alternative for you to attack. You’re wasting youre time there.

          The point is, even all those hundreds of years ago, we had an alternative to just trusting that crime wouldn’t exist, as you suggested was the only alternative.

          Other than its state-ness exaplin the difference between state vigilante justice and the exact equivalent done by any other kind of group.

          I really, really hope I don’t have to explain why it being done by a state doesn’t magically make it better, in of itself.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            Lol nice try but I don’t have to provide you with an alternative for you to attack. You’re wasting youre time there.

            “See, the thing is, I already know I’m right, so I’m not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in.”

            I really, really hope I don’t have to explain why it being done by a state doesn’t magically make it better, in of itself.

            …you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice where people can just go after whomever they want? yeah, you do have to explain that actually

            • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 days ago

              See, the thing is, I already know I’m right, so I’m not going to waste time by giving you arguments to find flaws in.”

              Again, nice try but I’m used to people as slippery as you. What you mean is “you’re right, we don’t just have to sit around and trust that crime doesn’t exist. However, I’m the kind of person who really struggles to back down or walk back even the most wild and silly of things that I imply.”

              you mean why a system of justice that is held liable to a court system is not superior to a system of justice where people can just go after whomever they want? yeah, you do have to explain that actually

              Why would I explain something completely different to what I said to you?

              • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                23 days ago

                Okay, so if we’re not just going to trust that crime isn’t going to happen, how are we going to prevent it? I asked you that, straight up, and you said “I’m not going to give you something just for you to poke holes in it. I’ve dealt with your kind before.”

                • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  So, are you saying we do or we don’t all have to just sit around and trust crime wouldn’t exist? Sorry, I couldn’t tell which one it was you were saying from that answer.

                  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    23 days ago

                    You say we don’t. A cursory reading of the source you cited seems to imply that we do. Obviously, then, a cursory reading of the source is insufficient, and you must have some solution that will prevent crime in the absence of judges and police officers, right?

                    You linked to this source, so surely you’ve read it and you understand the author’s position better than I do, right?

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        Before states if someone murdered your friend it would either split the tribe and/or you’d go to war with the tribe that killed your friend. Is that really better?

          • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            24 days ago

            I’m not sure where anyone suggested that people had to trust that crime doesn’t exist.

              • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                It’s one of the major themes of the source that you linked.

                The many stories, past and present, that demonstrate how anarchy works have been suppressed and distorted because of the revolutionary conclusions we might draw from them. We can live in a society with no bosses, masters, politicians, or bureaucrats; a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals, no rich or poor; a society free of sexism, homophobia, and transphobia; a society in which the wounds from centuries of enslavement, colonialism, and genocide are finally allowed to heal. The only things stopping us are the prisons, programming, and paychecks of the powerful, as well as our own lack of faith in ourselves.

                Every society is going to have some criminals. Lack of access to things people need to survive is a major reason for commission of crimes, but it is not the only reason. Plenty of people do illegal things just because they feel like it. Some people are pathological liars. If a society cannot deal with those, it will eventually fail. Obviously crime will go down by (throwing a number out) a factor of at least five once the magical socialist utopia is in place, but to argue that it will entirely disappear is hopelessly naive.

                • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  Again, I’m not sure why you think anyone is saying that crime won’t exist or that people won’t have to deal with criminals.

                  You know, its almost, almost as if you’re making up a position no one is taking and then arguing against that instead.

                  Well, I say almost…

                  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    23 days ago

                    maybe if i make this short enough you’ll actually read the whole thing

                    a society with no judges, no police, and no criminals

                    how