@sofia @gurubert its interesting that you question whether the police should enforce existing law. Whatever, lets look at your picture. What do we have in Germany?
- Decriminalized prostitution: yes
- Free education: yes
- Affordable Housing: yes
- Job placement: yes
- Universal Health Care: yes
- Mental health services: yes
- Drug treatment programs: yes
- Social Workers: yes
Sure, its fun to denounce the police. But you may want to rethink your post.
well, i'm an anarchist. i think law should not be the will of a ruler enforced on their subjects, but contracts based on informed consent. and the point is not to denounce individuals but to look which social structures allow for abuse and exploitation.
your yes-es are really kindof-s with huge asterisks attached. healthcare and education definitely aren't provided for free or "universal". drug prohibition is still being expanded rather than abolished, for example.
an anarchy is a society that effectively minimizes violence and coercion. that's the definition i find most coherent, anyway. it may not be the preferred definition of other anarchists, but i think most of them will _basically_ agree to it.
@Jonius @gurubert how to ensure anarchy is another question, of course. anarcho-communists want to get there by equalizing access to ressources, anarcho-capitalists want to get there through strong property rights.
i think the key is the structure of institutions: there should be no monopolies and they should generally be owned and managed by their stakeholders (the people affected by it). and people should have a general opposition to violence…
@Jonius @gurubert btw: "general opposition to violence" may sound like a no-brainer to you, who would disagree with that? but you only have to look back ~50 years to see violence against children and spouses normalized ~100 years to have crowds cheering for entering WW1 and ~200 years for gruesome public executions. in some ways our society has become a lot more anarchic already. anyway, thanks for having an open mind! :)
@sofia @gurubert I'd say the reduced amount of violence is basically a result of better education (which was a capitalistic demand). What do you mean with institutions? Political institutions are owned and managed by stakeholders today. To become a member of the parliament you need to be part of the people that will be effected by the laws.
@sofia @gurubert most children (me included back then) would not be willing to put much effort into school if it was all voluntary. Now I would highly regret. I also don't see what student-owned is supposed to improve, if I think back of how we loved to disturb the classes and do every thing but studying...
@Jonius @gurubert a thought experiment regarding ownership:
let's say there is a machine on your workplace: you can't sell it or give it away. your company was assigned to you at birth, you can't leave it behind except maybe under specific conditions that you haven't agreed to. you aren't allowed to take the machine home or to another workplace. you can elect certain managerial positions in the company. does that mean you own the machine?
but i was making an analogy describing our relationship to state institutions, making the point that we don't own them. and democracy doesn't change that. just as workers don't own the industry in state socialism.
@sofia @gurubert I'd argue the bigger a group is (e.g. an 80 Mio nation vs a 10.000 people town) the less each individual feels and is represented by the democratic rulers. If you want high participation (aka ownership) you need small communities. But that would mean to give up the wealth that results from collaboration and specialization in big communities. Do we want that? I am not sure...
but certainly there are economies of scale sometimes, as well as diseconomies of scale. there are pros and cons to size and the anarchist answer is pretty clear: leave people the choice and allow for experimentation. like with actual ownership. instead of just assuming the status quo is optimal somehow.
@sofia @gurubert what you say could also be assumed a capitalist or liberal position, but you call it anarchist. Nobody believes that economic monopolies are good (except for monopolists). Competition and ownership are good for growth of wealth. The more you scale communities, the more you need a reason to trust total strangers. That can be achieved by a power that has no economic interest itself, but defines and enforces the rules. That is more or less achieved by what we call "the state".
to trust strangers you basically need two things: information and security. you'd probably agree that we don't want information to be under state control. so what about security? you seem to assume that's just 'naturally' the job of the state. but why? what about the state would make it well-suited for that?
For trusting strangers you also need some insurance. Information about whether a stranger will keep his word is not realistic. If you know that someone would force the stranger to keep his word if he didn't want to later, than you got kind of an insurance. The actual force does not even need to be applied in most cases.
@Jonius @gurubert i don't think there is a social entity with "no economic interests". and a state's power is inseparable from economic influence. and it needs to maintain it's power to continue existing. i think "Rules for Rulers" describes the process pretty well: https://invidio.us/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!