You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What Alt-Rights Need To Realize About SJWs and Why The Only Answer Is an Anarchic Truce
Anarchy doesn't guarantee a Utopian society free of crime. As Gustave de Molinari. said " Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won't kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will."
So by eliminating Government you reduce the opportunity of people do criminal acts and this is Important, you reduce the scale, frequency and volume of theft and crime against society.
For instance you and your friends don't have the resources do develop a nuke and attack your neighbors, but governments can and have done that due to amount of resources they can steal and control.
Yes, but the question is, what do you do with the criminals? You have not answered that. You are just blaming government but are not providing a solution. I think the question is very clear.
Yeah I'd like an answer to that as well, good question.
I covered this a little in own of my most recent posts; essentially the individual is resstrained and given the chance to apply to other communities/areas to be released to, and if they are not accepted they can go into a non-occupied zone, out of the boarders of the anarchist territories, or get the punishment the community decides on, which could be death or simply starting at the bottom and living with no luxuries.
In "an"caps, well, you just get shot by the landowner or enslaved by their private police force :)
So a non occupied zone would be basically wildlands? away from society?
Theoretically, yes, although this could present issues with people trying to set up road-blocks and that'd result in a violation of the NAP, and likely extreme violence, but that could easily be solved by designating where the wildlands is.
It could simply be different parts that are unpopulated all around the world. If the USA flips, allow part of Alaska, a good chunk of the Dakotas, and potentially a slot somewhere on the southern boarder where it's agreed to simply let criminals do criminal things there, or for them to build their own society and potentially redeem their self as individuals, promoting other communities to accept them in again.
Essentially it's immoral to hold someone indefinitely and give them no other choice, even if they committed an awful crime, plus it wastes surplus, so offer him to other people and if nobody wants him give him the choice between the societies punishment/reform or being released into a wild-land with just some basic supplies appropriate for the climate.
Well I guess I will leave it at that, the answers certainly don't convince me.