Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;43154851]That stems from plain mental illness. If you take actions like that then you have a serious lack of empathy. It's a symptom of a greater issue, not a problem in itself.[/QUOTE] EXACTLY! shit like murder, rape & arson and thievery etc is a result of 2 things: socioeconomic pressure or mental illness. in an anarchist society socioeconomic pressure wouldn't (or i guess i should say shouldn't) exist and mental illness shouldn't be punished

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43154842]you will probably be banished. you might be executed as well. it depends on the society. neither of those measures are punitive, though. they aren't designed to "punish" anyone, only to ensure the continued safety of the community. it isn't that people would banish you so you could "think about your actions", it would be people banishing you so you are no longer a risk to their safety.[/QUOTE] 'they aren't designed to "punish" anyone, only to ensure the continued safety of the community.' That is an arbitrary distinction. We lock up criminals in real life as much to keep them away from society as to actually punish. It doesn't matter whether you say 'we're executing you to punish you for killing someone' or 'we're executing you to keep you from executing other people', the effect is exactly the same. If the sequence of events is murder someone -> get banished/executed, then hey, we have a de facto law. It's going to be expected that there will be a consequence to this behavior. And people will expect that effect associated with that cause. Calling it anything but a law is just equivocating on vocabulary.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43154866]EXACTLY! shit like murder, rape & arson and thievery etc is a result of 2 things: socioeconomic pressure or mental illness. in an anarchist society socioeconomic pressure wouldn't (or i guess i should say shouldn't) exist and mental illness shouldn't be punished[/QUOTE] Except it would exist because people would form communities and dictate what they perceived what would be punishable.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43154862]I'm going to be honest, it just sounds like you want to start over.[/QUOTE] i want to take the knowledge and philosophy of the modern day, tear down the existing structures, and create something new. i guess you can call that "starting over", but it isn't a call to any time in the past. i want something that can bring us "towards the future", if you will.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43154879]Except it would exist because people would form communities and dictate what they perceived what would be punishable.[/QUOTE] Missing the point 2013.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43154876]'they aren't designed to "punish" anyone, only to ensure the continued safety of the community.' That is an arbitrary distinction. We lock up criminals in real life as much to keep them away from society as to actually punish. It doesn't matter whether you say 'we're executing you to punish you for killing someone' or 'we're executing you to keep you from executing other people', the effect is exactly the same. If the sequence of events is murder someone -> get banished/executed, then hey, we have a de facto law. It's going to be expected that there will be a consequence to this behavior. And people will expect that effect associated with that cause. Calling it anything but a law is just equivocating on vocabulary.[/QUOTE] ok then who cares?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43154865]well yea that's social alienation. instead of being a hypothetical in some anarchist society, it is a problem that is institutionalized by the state and capitalism in the present.[/QUOTE] Yes excellent job avoiding the question. Bravo! [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43154866]EXACTLY! shit like murder, rape & arson and thievery etc is a result of 2 things: socioeconomic pressure or mental illness. in an anarchist society socioeconomic pressure wouldn't (or i guess i should say shouldn't) exist and mental illness shouldn't be punished[/QUOTE] So how do you make sure that person with mental illness isn't a threat to society? Not punish them? Execute them? Exile them? Isn't only one of those an option according to you?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43154888]i want to take the knowledge and philosophy of the modern day, tear down the existing structures, and create something new. i guess you can call that "starting over", but it isn't a call to any time in the past. i want something that can bring us "towards the future", if you will.[/QUOTE] There are many different paths to the future.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43154876]'they aren't designed to "punish" anyone, only to ensure the continued safety of the community.' That is an arbitrary distinction. We lock up criminals in real life as much to keep them away from society as to actually punish. It doesn't matter whether you say 'we're executing you to punish you for killing someone' or 'we're executing you to keep you from executing other people', the effect is exactly the same. If the sequence of events is murder someone -> get banished/executed, then hey, we have a de facto law. It's going to be expected that there will be a consequence to this behavior. And people will expect that effect associated with that cause. Calling it anything but a law is just equivocating on vocabulary.[/QUOTE] it's not the same though, stopping someone from oppressing others isn't punishing them. and sure maybe there are laws in the way that there are things you can't do in a voluntary society (aka acts of oppression) but there are no laws in the current sense in the way that there are things society deems you can and can't do (and don't even try to say that rape murder & arson are only unacceptable because society deems they aren't i refuse to accept this) [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43154898]Yes excellent job avoiding the question. Bravo! So how do you make sure that person with mental illness isn't a threat to society? Not punish them? Execute them? Exile them? Isn't only one of those an option according to you?[/QUOTE] help them? treat their illness? is that punishment?

[QUOTE=Swilly;43154879]Except it would exist because people would form communities and dictate what they perceived what would be punishable.[/QUOTE] unlikely, since there wouldn't be a traditional legal structure in place to facilitate that kind of action. most "crime" would be solved as a personal conflict between two or more parties. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43154899]There are many different paths to the future.[/QUOTE] sure, and i think the most exciting path is the one where we all are free to create a future. i want our success or failure to be all our responsibility, not just the responsibility of a ruling elite.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43154902]it's not the same though, stopping someone from oppressing others isn't punishing them. and sure maybe there are laws in the way that there are things you can't do in a voluntary society (aka acts of oppression) but there are no laws in the current sense in the way that there are things society deems you can and can't do (and don't even try to say that rape murder & arson are only unacceptable because society deems they aren't i refuse to accept this) [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] help them? treat their illness? is that punishment?[/QUOTE] OK, then how do you get someone that can treat their illness? your society has no methods of long term advancement that have been created naturally by their existence, we had monasteries run by churches before colleges run by deans and boards, where would your knowledge come from? If nobody has any governance power what is to say that you cannot become a profession? Also this doesn't even get into how to get medicines needed for their treatment procedures considering the difficulty of production.

If we're talking about punishment then the realization of your wrongdoings and subsequent dissociation of yourself from society because they don't want to be around destructive individuals is more pain than any kind of physical torture or state-sanctioned imprisonment. It's your own mental prison. That's when you are met with a choice: make the same mistakes or confront your problems and take [B]real action[/B] to improve yourself. If you're only doing it to appear 'reformed' to everyone else then it's not going to change anything. You have to do it for yourself. This is why I recommend a psychedelic experience to people who are this emotionally and psychically damaged as it brings that ecstasy of revelation with relative ease.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43154906]unlikely, since there wouldn't be a traditional legal structure in place to facilitate that kind of action. most "crime" would be solved as a personal conflict between two or more parties. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] sure, and i think the most exciting path is the one where we all are free to create a future. i want our success or failure to be all our responsibility, not just the responsibility of a ruling elite.[/QUOTE] And I want our success to be due to working together as a single unit, not as a sparse societies that probably wouldn't talk to each other.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43154906]unlikely, since there wouldn't be a traditional legal structure in place to facilitate that kind of action. most "crime" would be solved as a personal conflict between two or more parties.[/QUOTE] And what happens when those "anti social" people become organized in a separate manner? Are they allowed to have their own separate democracy within your society or are they forced out for non-conformity?

[QUOTE=Swilly;43154967]And I want our success to be due to working together as a single unit, not as a sparse societies that probably wouldn't talk to each other.[/QUOTE] the anarcho-syndicalist believes in a federation of trade unions. would that be more palatable to you? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43154972]And what happens when those "anti social" people become organized in a separate manner? Are they allowed to have their own separate democracy within your society or are they forced out for non-conformity?[/QUOTE] they aren't "allowed" anything. they are free to create agreements amongst themselves like any other person.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43154949]OK, then how do you get someone that can treat their illness? your society has no methods of long term advancement that have been created naturally by their existence, we had monasteries run by churches before colleges run by deans and boards, where would your knowledge come from? If nobody has any governance power what is to say that you cannot become a profession? Also this doesn't even get into how to get medicines needed for their treatment procedures considering the difficulty of production.[/QUOTE] why doesn't it? people collect knowledge as hobbies, people become doctors because they like to help others. the difficulty of producing medicines i agree with, and i dunno i don't have all the answers do i? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43154967]And I want our success to be due to working together as a single unit, not as a sparse societies that probably wouldn't talk to each other.[/QUOTE] well that's not what we have now, we have working FOR and that's all their is

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43154975]the anarcho-syndicalist believes in a federation of trade unions. would that be more palatable to you? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] they aren't "allowed" anything. they are free to create agreements amongst themselves like any other person.[/QUOTE] Now what happens if those groups become a majority, do you still have any control if you aren't a member and they are able to act independent of the minority? Wow we now have a direct democracy, or a representative democracy, wait isn't that rome?

You forget I'm a socialist. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43154992] well that's not what we have now, we have working FOR and that's all their is[/QUOTE] And there are many ways to get to that end. We could pull a Heinlein and create a Space Rome.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43154999]Now what happens if those groups become a majority, do you still have any control if you aren't a member and they are able to act independent of the minority? Wow we now have a direct democracy, or a representative democracy, wait isn't that rome?[/QUOTE] if they try to oppress you you fight them? if they aren't oppressing anyone whats the problem? and how is that rome lol. classless society doesn't work with plebs, patricians & equites [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43155005]You forget I'm a socialist. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] And there are many ways to get to that end. We could pull a Heinlein and create a Space Rome.[/QUOTE] yes there are many ways, and the way i think is best is anarchism, because it's the way all people can be free and happy and live without oppression. i believe oppression to be the most evil thing

[QUOTE=Swilly;43155005]You forget I'm a socialist. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] And there are many ways to get to that end. We could pull a Heinlein and create a Space Rome.[/QUOTE] 'Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.' this is noam chomsky on anarcho-syndicalism.

i agree that anarchism probably isn't the best when it comes to technological advancement (although at the same time i don't see how it couldn't still happen, there's been tons of inventors that just invented because they like to) and all that kind of stuff, but i don't put efficiency and technology and all that stuff above freedom of choice and opportunity.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43155023]'Now a federated, decentralized system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.' this is noam chomsky on anarcho-syndicalism.[/QUOTE] It would totally be possible if we had robots that could do the work, until they start thinking and then we're still in the same problem as before. My ultimate goal is to [B]avoid[/B] the cyberpunk era we're veering headlong right into.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43155033]It would totally be possible if we had robots that could do the work, until they start thinking and then we're still in the same problem as before. My ultimate goal is to [B]avoid[/B] the cyberpunk era we're veering headlong right into.[/QUOTE] syndicalists tend towards luddism or neo-luddism from what i'v seen. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] so maybe right up your alley?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43154992]why doesn't it? people collect knowledge as hobbies, people become doctors because they like to help others. the difficulty of producing medicines i agree with, and i dunno i don't have all the answers do i? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] well that's not what we have now, we have working FOR and that's all their is[/QUOTE] Look into the machinery used to make medicine for our own society, look into the methods of making sure that medicine is safe, and look into the MSDS or the newer Safety Data Sheets. If everyone thought their method was a better way of supplying that information, you would have how man versions of the same or similar data in unrecognizable different fashions, much of that data would be in different locations which makes it difficult to find all those life saving measures and such. Standardization is important. By not having someone or a group specialized in it like say ISO you would have massive amount of unorganized information. You know, like what they are fixing now.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155028]i agree that anarchism probably isn't the best when it comes to technological advancement (although at the same time i don't see how it couldn't still happen, there's been tons of inventors that just invented because they like to) and all that kind of stuff, but i don't put efficiency and technology and all that stuff above freedom of choice and opportunity.[/QUOTE] I'm the opposite, with our planet the way it is, we need to start clamping down and dealing with the fact that we need to be more efficient with what we do and how we do it. An anarchic society would create a different set of problems with what we face as an issue that is a global scaled thought of humanity's survival. Capitalism needs to be fixed, Anarchy will not solve the issue. We need to work together, neither of those systems facilitate that. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43155040]syndicalists tend towards luddism or neo-luddism from what i'v seen. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] so maybe right up your alley?[/QUOTE] I wanna go around the cyberpunk and go straight into sci-fi.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43155043]Look into the machinery used to make medicine for our own society, look into the methods of making sure that medicine is safe, and look into the MSDS or the newer Safety Data Sheets. If everyone thought their method was a better way of supplying that information, you would have how man versions of the same or similar data in unrecognizable different fashions, much of that data would be in different locations which makes it difficult to find all those life saving measures and such. Standardization is important. By not having someone or a group specialized in it like say ISO you would have massive amount of unorganized information. You know, like what they are fixing now.[/QUOTE] well the internet goes a long way for providing information to everyone, would it be hard to keep the internet going?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155097]well the internet goes a long way for providing information to everyone, would it be hard to keep the internet going?[/QUOTE] its a massive infrastructure and even then you'd have to verify the information on the internet and find a way to filter the very prevalent misinformation out

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155097]well the internet goes a long way for providing information to everyone, would it be hard to keep the internet going?[/QUOTE] Extremely, the amount of servers, maitence and the like. Its a mechanism that was built around Democracy/Capitalism, it would never work in an anarchy.

tangent: never use the internet for any serious medical advice

[QUOTE=Swilly;43155110]Extremely.[/QUOTE] why is that?