5 ms·

Yes. It was good for me and it was good for the other person too. Why? Because it enforces society's moral standards upon everyone. If there is no common ground

by cssmoo 12y ago

Yes. It was good for me and it was good for the other person too. Why? Because it enforces society's moral standards upon everyone. If there is no common ground it descends into anarchy because if someone owes me £1500 I'm going to pay £200 to smash his kneecaps if there wasn't a court and bailiff option...

crdoconnor 12y ago
>I'm going to pay £200 to smash his kneecaps The often extreme violence of creditors against debtors, and the way that has debt has been used to control (and often enslave) others is another theme of Graeber's books. I imagine that you are not a fan.
- cssmoo 12y ago
  Bailiffs and debt collectors are two different concepts.
zo1 12y ago
I'm sorry, but if you think that is what a state-less society will turn to, then it says more about you than it does about other people. I, for example, don't not smash people's kneecaps because it's "against the law", just like most other individuals that inhabit this society. On the other hand, you seem to be under the misconception that there can be no "common ground" in a society without a state-mandated "common ground". Here are some links to start you off on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization #Note. Sorry for detracting from the main topic being discussed here. But I sometimes do feel compelled to enlighten individuals that seem to have some very "spoon fed" definitions about the possibility of a state-less society, and how it might look like.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks. Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%.
  - zo1 11y ago
    >"I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks." Did that country also have laws against carrying firearms? How about laws that prevent individuals from defending themselves? E.g. Castle-doctrine, self-defense, private security firms, etc. You may hail it as proof that without a state, safety is not ensured. But I see it as an unfortunate limbo position where there is no protection provided by the state to the inhabitants, and there are also legal/state obstacles in place to prevent private individuals from performing that function. I live in a country that is in the top 40 on the list of per-capita murder rates in the world. Probably much higher up on the list if you take into account violent crimes, etc. South Africa. It also has a huge industry for security services provided by private companies. Not only that, but a huge population of the country has opted to live in little "security" estates that have controlled access, private security guards, security cameras, electric fences, etc. Neighborhoods that spend large amounts of money on aiding the police in securing their neighborhood using cameras, volunteer patrols, paid private security company patrols, etc. In order to take private security any further, laws need to be removed because they are not being implemented effectively (like the rest of the country, but that's a separate debate). E.g. neighborhoods can't currently cordon off access to their streets, even if they had permission from all the land owners in the neighborhood. This is also the main reason why so many are moving to security estates, because they're huge chunks of private land and as such bypass those rules. >"Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%." One of us is right in this regard. Perhaps it's also some sort of gray area where everything except X, Y, Z can be provided for privately without the need for a state. But would you at least concede that we can never know the true point in this spectrum without testing it? I.e. By slowly allowing private companies/individuals to take over safety/security. Note, removing state protection/security services in one go would be disastrous, I would never advocate it as I think it would cause total violent anarchy overnight.

by cssmoo 12y ago

crdoconnor 12y ago

>I'm going to pay £200 to smash his kneecaps The often extreme violence of creditors against debtors, and the way that has debt has been used to control (and often enslave) others is another theme of Graeber's books. I imagine that you are not a fan.

cssmoo 12y ago
Bailiffs and debt collectors are two different concepts.

zo1 12y ago

I'm sorry, but if you think that is what a state-less society will turn to, then it says more about you than it does about other people. I, for example, don't not smash people's kneecaps because it's "against the law", just like most other individuals that inhabit this society. On the other hand, you seem to be under the misconception that there can be no "common ground" in a society without a state-mandated "common ground". Here are some links to start you off on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization #Note. Sorry for detracting from the main topic being discussed here. But I sometimes do feel compelled to enlighten individuals that seem to have some very "spoon fed" definitions about the possibility of a state-less society, and how it might look like.

rayiner 11y ago
I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks. Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%.
- zo1 11y ago
  >"I'm curious, have you ever lived in a country without strong centralized law enforcement? I have. It sucks." Did that country also have laws against carrying firearms? How about laws that prevent individuals from defending themselves? E.g. Castle-doctrine, self-defense, private security firms, etc. You may hail it as proof that without a state, safety is not ensured. But I see it as an unfortunate limbo position where there is no protection provided by the state to the inhabitants, and there are also legal/state obstacles in place to prevent private individuals from performing that function. I live in a country that is in the top 40 on the list of per-capita murder rates in the world. Probably much higher up on the list if you take into account violent crimes, etc. South Africa. It also has a huge industry for security services provided by private companies. Not only that, but a huge population of the country has opted to live in little "security" estates that have controlled access, private security guards, security cameras, electric fences, etc. Neighborhoods that spend large amounts of money on aiding the police in securing their neighborhood using cameras, volunteer patrols, paid private security company patrols, etc. In order to take private security any further, laws need to be removed because they are not being implemented effectively (like the rest of the country, but that's a separate debate). E.g. neighborhoods can't currently cordon off access to their streets, even if they had permission from all the land owners in the neighborhood. This is also the main reason why so many are moving to security estates, because they're huge chunks of private land and as such bypass those rules. >"Even if 90% of people don't use violence, that just creates an enormous incentive for the other 10% of people to do so. And those 10%, organized into gangs, can terrorize the other 90%." One of us is right in this regard. Perhaps it's also some sort of gray area where everything except X, Y, Z can be provided for privately without the need for a state. But would you at least concede that we can never know the true point in this spectrum without testing it? I.e. By slowly allowing private companies/individuals to take over safety/security. Note, removing state protection/security services in one go would be disastrous, I would never advocate it as I think it would cause total violent anarchy overnight.