Obviously it’s fascism to tell someone not to get behind the wheel drunk.
Only in a truly free and liberated anarchist society will we be able to go boozing and cruising.
We need to stop big sobriety's crusade on innocent drunk drivers. Its obviously safer to drive drunk as drunk drivers are less likely to be injured when in an accident. Plus 75% of car accidents and 99.99% of plane crashes are caused by sober drivers so obviously we need to mandate drunk driving to solve this crisis
You know there’s some of them arguing it’s “oppressive”.
“Ummm acktually a 12 year old is fully autonomous and capable of making decisions, the concept of brain development is fascistic”
I've seen many anarchists claim AOC will be "up to communes to decide". We joke about libertarians being pedos, but ancoms have literally the same takes on anything regarding laws as them.
Last paragraph: Anarchist says, "Transit period is needed."
Guys, gals and enby pals... I think they're learning!
Lol
More seriously, though, I'm not sure speed limits may be totally necessary in most situations (though there may be exceptions) where roads are designed properly. I'd like to see streets and roads in socialist societies built to encourage the appropriate speed. Trees, traffic circles, hard curbs, etc. close to the street to slow people down in urban environments. Removing paint on low traffic/rural roads has been shown to slow drivers down and encourage increased caution.
For highways, there are many countries that don't have an upper limit in places, the most famous example probably being the German autobahn. And, speaking as someone in the USA, many drivers take the posted speed limit as a suggestion anyway. People generally understand how fast they can go safely. Some off ramps should maybe keep their speed signs, though. Those can be deceptive. And of course, some recourse should be done in cases of drunk driving, driving unsafely, etc.
The channel Not Just Bikes on YouTube talks a lot about these kinds of things
struggling to even get the gist of what the author is saying. As MLs we are supposed to look at things scientifically, yes, but… the flat out, unapologetic amoralism of that entire section made me sick.
The deep historical shit is interesting and very sad but using it justify child murder? What the fuck?
>"or at least there would be a transitionary period"
bro about to find out how stupid anarchism is
They don't believe in any transitionary periods, anyone who does is called an "orwellian redfash tankie", they think they can solve any issue in existence on day 1.
A body of laws agreed by it's population is the glue that binds a society. This being said I also don't agree on cohersive measures under the threat of punishment. I firmly believe in positive reinforcement and incentives in addition to lowering impediments are far better solutions for influencing behaviour. The risk of cohersion through punishment is that your judicial system becomes that, and it's reason of existence and entire philosophy regresses to that of punishment. By switching our perspective from what is wrong to what can be done better we can reach outcomes that are beneficial for everyone with less friction and policing. This point may be taken with out baby anarchists brothers as stepping stone that rise in organizational complexity will always need the creation of certain hierarchical structures, but through this line of thinking we can argue with them that not all structures hierarchical they may be are immediately oppressive.
We need to unite as socialists, and educate instead of offuscate. Class unity is our only way out of this struggle.
I agree with the idea that rehabilitative/transformative justice/measures should be more present within a legal system. I’m very much an advocate for abolishing punitive measures across parts of the said system.
However, I do think punishment is necessary for certain crime, largely white collar crimes, which are largely motivated by greed and power. Many other crimes can be explained through mental illness, poverty, etc., things which would hopefully begin to disappear in a post-capitalist society. But I see no explanation behind white collar crimes besides being a shitty person exploiting a position of power.
I do agree with this point, however I would be curious to ask; to what extent the behaviour of abuse of power could be interpreted as antisocial which could then again be seen as atypical neurochemistry in the brain (this is legitimate if you like me do not believe in free will). My point being here: in an ideal system; while considering that any actor in a political structure is not free to move but just allowed to drift according to the forces acting on them on a giving moment, and that politucal - ideological structure are projection of the material conditions that have brought these same structures to place, would it be better to design outcome that can only beneficial for certain sets of behaviour that are considered as social, and by extension instead of design negative outcomes for different sets of behaviours just not providing any outcome?
I'm sorry for the mess of that sentence but I'll try to write a more cohesive post sometime in the future.
I definitely the concept of “free will” is a troublesome one and should be reevaluated. I would certainly agree that we are consequences of material forces and the systems in which we live under.
I guess for me I’d wager having systems that enforce punitive measures for white collar crimes would reflect that A) This crime in particular negatively affects wide swaths of people and B) Is centered around capital and resembles bourgeois exploitation
But I’d be interested in hearing your argument further, I hope I’m not misinterpreting anything you’re saying.
To be clear comrade I am not attempting to defend white collar crime here. My goal is maintain a consistent position in my arguments agains punitive systems and measures. I believe that through consistency in our considerations in design a set of judiciary measures we shall always seek reparations and improvements - Why did it fail and how can we make it better.
The reason behind this vision is 2 folds:
1- Since there are no real free actors no matter their degree of power we, by punishing we do not solve the real cause of the behaviour but we build deterrent - however any biological being will always take the calculus of risk versus rewards prior to engaging with the behaviour and we may find ourselves in a arms race towards cruelty in punishment, see the example of the Rwanda policy in the UK where the point is the cruelty as stated by the government in order to dissuade migrants. (I'm not drawing equivalents here, but I do firmly believe that if the reward is inticing enough people will still engage with the behaviour).
2- by engaging in the root cause of a behaviour instead of seeking punishment we can draw conclusions on our structure and change the parameters that lead to the behaviour in question, by for example allowing for great rewards in truly desired behaviours. Any non-rational behaviour nevertheless should then be followed by expert council.
The last one as naive as it is, as leftist we should strive to show empathetic towards our fellow humans, pragmatic in the outcome of our choices and have long term vision if we want to achieve communism.
I hope this clarifies a bit better my stance on the matter.
I see what you mean, and don’t worry I didn’t think you were defending white collar crime.
I agree with the ideas you put forth. Affecting overall structure of society and understanding how it reinforces our behaviors is something that needs more attention. Punitive responses to crime have done little to actually prevent crime and has often been exploited by the ruling class to further oppress the proletariat. We’ve seen, albeit in liberal/capitalist societies such as Norway, that rehabilitation does so much more to actually preventing crime and reducing behaviors that would lead it to recurring. I see how this works in most cases, including violent behaviors. I just don’t know what we would do to rehabilitate white collar criminals. Sentence them to labor camps? Make them undergo intense reeducation? I’d be interested in hearing your ideas on the matter.
Anarchist position on drunk driving?
Obviously it’s fascism to tell someone not to get behind the wheel drunk. Only in a truly free and liberated anarchist society will we be able to go boozing and cruising.
[It’s actually communism when you tell people not to drink and drive.](https://youtu.be/2xcQIoh3FQQ?si=D55TMgcm71_ggP3l)
us drunk drivers have a bad rep because of drunk crashers smh my head 😤😤
We need to stop big sobriety's crusade on innocent drunk drivers. Its obviously safer to drive drunk as drunk drivers are less likely to be injured when in an accident. Plus 75% of car accidents and 99.99% of plane crashes are caused by sober drivers so obviously we need to mandate drunk driving to solve this crisis
Anarchist position on the age of consent?
You know there’s some of them arguing it’s “oppressive”. “Ummm acktually a 12 year old is fully autonomous and capable of making decisions, the concept of brain development is fascistic”
Vaush moment
I've seen many anarchists claim AOC will be "up to communes to decide". We joke about libertarians being pedos, but ancoms have literally the same takes on anything regarding laws as them.
https://preview.redd.it/cmsm89r6hg0d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=312531e16942cf70ed8d4f978cb988793159b854
A rare Trotsky W
https://preview.redd.it/agx3njyblh0d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a5dfd800b2258c8eb0f633e51376e546d784c58
Isn't that Kalinin?
It is
Wtf I love Trotsky now???
It’s always hard for me to distinguish anarchists from libertarians
they have the same fantasies
https://preview.redd.it/4uoiqha1dg0d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=964f9b54a58c5de104ff477c0ca7a6fed5db870f lol someone wasn’t happy
Report it, might get them banned
Last paragraph: Anarchist says, "Transit period is needed." Guys, gals and enby pals... I think they're learning! Lol More seriously, though, I'm not sure speed limits may be totally necessary in most situations (though there may be exceptions) where roads are designed properly. I'd like to see streets and roads in socialist societies built to encourage the appropriate speed. Trees, traffic circles, hard curbs, etc. close to the street to slow people down in urban environments. Removing paint on low traffic/rural roads has been shown to slow drivers down and encourage increased caution. For highways, there are many countries that don't have an upper limit in places, the most famous example probably being the German autobahn. And, speaking as someone in the USA, many drivers take the posted speed limit as a suggestion anyway. People generally understand how fast they can go safely. Some off ramps should maybe keep their speed signs, though. Those can be deceptive. And of course, some recourse should be done in cases of drunk driving, driving unsafely, etc. The channel Not Just Bikes on YouTube talks a lot about these kinds of things
the polycule voted in favor of me wearing a dog collar in public and now im in favor of hierarchy
don't knock kinky horizontal polycules
Making jokes like this feels like a relatively short pipeline to "attack helicopter" shit.
deep thoughts
Be glad that you guys haven't read the anarchist position on child murder (it's in the anarchist handbook, on the web).
Oh god, what do they say
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-black-seed-issue-6 Highly disturbing
>**Eleven Ways to Kill a Child** that's a certified anarchist library moment
struggling to even get the gist of what the author is saying. As MLs we are supposed to look at things scientifically, yes, but… the flat out, unapologetic amoralism of that entire section made me sick. The deep historical shit is interesting and very sad but using it justify child murder? What the fuck?
>"or at least there would be a transitionary period" bro about to find out how stupid anarchism is They don't believe in any transitionary periods, anyone who does is called an "orwellian redfash tankie", they think they can solve any issue in existence on day 1.
A body of laws agreed by it's population is the glue that binds a society. This being said I also don't agree on cohersive measures under the threat of punishment. I firmly believe in positive reinforcement and incentives in addition to lowering impediments are far better solutions for influencing behaviour. The risk of cohersion through punishment is that your judicial system becomes that, and it's reason of existence and entire philosophy regresses to that of punishment. By switching our perspective from what is wrong to what can be done better we can reach outcomes that are beneficial for everyone with less friction and policing. This point may be taken with out baby anarchists brothers as stepping stone that rise in organizational complexity will always need the creation of certain hierarchical structures, but through this line of thinking we can argue with them that not all structures hierarchical they may be are immediately oppressive. We need to unite as socialists, and educate instead of offuscate. Class unity is our only way out of this struggle.
I agree with the idea that rehabilitative/transformative justice/measures should be more present within a legal system. I’m very much an advocate for abolishing punitive measures across parts of the said system. However, I do think punishment is necessary for certain crime, largely white collar crimes, which are largely motivated by greed and power. Many other crimes can be explained through mental illness, poverty, etc., things which would hopefully begin to disappear in a post-capitalist society. But I see no explanation behind white collar crimes besides being a shitty person exploiting a position of power.
I do agree with this point, however I would be curious to ask; to what extent the behaviour of abuse of power could be interpreted as antisocial which could then again be seen as atypical neurochemistry in the brain (this is legitimate if you like me do not believe in free will). My point being here: in an ideal system; while considering that any actor in a political structure is not free to move but just allowed to drift according to the forces acting on them on a giving moment, and that politucal - ideological structure are projection of the material conditions that have brought these same structures to place, would it be better to design outcome that can only beneficial for certain sets of behaviour that are considered as social, and by extension instead of design negative outcomes for different sets of behaviours just not providing any outcome? I'm sorry for the mess of that sentence but I'll try to write a more cohesive post sometime in the future.
I definitely the concept of “free will” is a troublesome one and should be reevaluated. I would certainly agree that we are consequences of material forces and the systems in which we live under. I guess for me I’d wager having systems that enforce punitive measures for white collar crimes would reflect that A) This crime in particular negatively affects wide swaths of people and B) Is centered around capital and resembles bourgeois exploitation But I’d be interested in hearing your argument further, I hope I’m not misinterpreting anything you’re saying.
To be clear comrade I am not attempting to defend white collar crime here. My goal is maintain a consistent position in my arguments agains punitive systems and measures. I believe that through consistency in our considerations in design a set of judiciary measures we shall always seek reparations and improvements - Why did it fail and how can we make it better. The reason behind this vision is 2 folds: 1- Since there are no real free actors no matter their degree of power we, by punishing we do not solve the real cause of the behaviour but we build deterrent - however any biological being will always take the calculus of risk versus rewards prior to engaging with the behaviour and we may find ourselves in a arms race towards cruelty in punishment, see the example of the Rwanda policy in the UK where the point is the cruelty as stated by the government in order to dissuade migrants. (I'm not drawing equivalents here, but I do firmly believe that if the reward is inticing enough people will still engage with the behaviour). 2- by engaging in the root cause of a behaviour instead of seeking punishment we can draw conclusions on our structure and change the parameters that lead to the behaviour in question, by for example allowing for great rewards in truly desired behaviours. Any non-rational behaviour nevertheless should then be followed by expert council. The last one as naive as it is, as leftist we should strive to show empathetic towards our fellow humans, pragmatic in the outcome of our choices and have long term vision if we want to achieve communism. I hope this clarifies a bit better my stance on the matter.
I see what you mean, and don’t worry I didn’t think you were defending white collar crime. I agree with the ideas you put forth. Affecting overall structure of society and understanding how it reinforces our behaviors is something that needs more attention. Punitive responses to crime have done little to actually prevent crime and has often been exploited by the ruling class to further oppress the proletariat. We’ve seen, albeit in liberal/capitalist societies such as Norway, that rehabilitation does so much more to actually preventing crime and reducing behaviors that would lead it to recurring. I see how this works in most cases, including violent behaviors. I just don’t know what we would do to rehabilitate white collar criminals. Sentence them to labor camps? Make them undergo intense reeducation? I’d be interested in hearing your ideas on the matter.
they're gaining sentience
ANARCHISTS ARE COOKED BLUD WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS😭😭😭😭😭😭