Question regarding behavior in modern society
Question regarding behavior in modern society
We anarchists are generally averse to cooperating with the police, for very good reasons. However, as I understand it, at times the only real way to protect the community in the society we currently live in seems to be talking with the pigs.
Suppose you believe yourself to have evidence incriminating a serial killer. In an anarchistic society the serial killer could be sent to the psych ward and dealt with humanely. But what about the modern day? Do you turn over the evidence to the police?
This question has been bothering me for about 3 days now. It was provoked by learning about Aufhebengate. It made me wonder under what circumstances snitching is justifiable.
You're viewing a single thread.
What makes you think that a "psych ward" would be an acceptable solution in an anarchist society?
confinement would still be involuntary and an imposition.
Because the alternatives are:
-
Prison
-
Execution
-
Exile, which offloads your problem to some other community
-
Letting someone who is a danger to themselves and others continue to be a danger
I think there are far more alternatives and also ways to mix them.
One more alternative would be constant care taking by one or more people. In case the community cant/doesnt want to provide that full time, it might be possible to mix this with other options that might reduce the persons autonomy.
Reasonable idea. Thank you.
you're writing that in your anarchist society there would be a "psyche ward" where people deemed dangerous by the society would be incarcerated.
Is that correct?
Not really incarcerated, per se. And only a subset of the dangerous people.
If someone commits murder in a fit of rage and regrets it afterwards, they would not need any obligation or coercion to undergo psychiatric treatment.
are you familiar with Foucault's work?
Not much, but I am aware that some of it had to do with psychiatry.
psychology, psychiatry, hospitals and of course what you may call "psyche wards" (among many other subjects)
the question of when we started to establish psychiatric institutions; who did we incarcerate in them and with what justifications. If this and similar subjects interest you, there you have a person who spent their life examining them.
-
confinement would still be involuntary and an imposition.
A worse imposition that being murdered by a serial killer?
most anarchisms (again the plurality) have problems with the community imposing choices over individuals.
justification of this or that as "better" or "worse" are personal or communal choices (and it shouldn't surprise you to find an "anarchist community" with despotic tendencies. Unlike theory, flesh degenerates with time 🤷
I think that more anarchisms have problems with individuals (serial killers) imposing harm over other individuals.
Collectivist anarchism doesn't really have a problem with establishing rules, to my understanding.
why go to extremes? Let's say a thief? An alcoholic who gets aggressive every time they're drunk? A man who beats their companion? Or a woman who beats their companion? A dog that shares the same space and bites your friends. A woodchuck in your garden?
"collectivity" may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules. Solving these kinds of problems while trying to respect anarchist ideals are not as easy as you think.
Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn't confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)
why go to extremes?
Extremes are interesting sanity checks for theories
Let's say a thief? An alcoholic ...
I'm currently not interested in these examples. You're whataboutising my point.
"collectivity" may establish rules but people who are sharing the same spaces, with or without similar world views, have no obligations to follow these rules
You have an obligation to follow the rules of a community if you are a part of that community. Also, a community has an obligation to their members. That can include protection.
Communists are more comfortable with these kinds of solutions. One shouldn't confuse the two (while there, of course, is an expansive common ground called anarcho-communism)
I'm an anarcho-communist myself so... thanks for the explanation, I guess?
you're welcome
anarcho-communists were always too communist for my anarchist tastes. Let's part ways, nothing would come of our pseudo conversation.
You're entitled to your opinion, but don't confuse that with "most anarchisms", please. Individualist anarchism is fine, but collectivist anarchism makes up a lot of the theoretic field.