• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t feel alienated by the justice system. Maybe it’s because I don’t live in America. Corporations infringe on my enjoyment of my life a lot more than the government ever does. The only interactions I ever have with the justice system is when the police come to my neighborhood to shut up a domestic disturbance which is usually much appreciated on my part.

    Also, the government provides all kinds of valuable services and benefits that I interact with every day. They build the roads that the corner shop across the street uses to get deliveries, they send out trash and recycling collectors every week, they run the clean water and power to my home, they maintain firefighting services and national free healthcare infrastructure. Sure they could be doing a bit better at some of these things, but I wouldn’t say I feel alienated by them.

    Meanwhile corporations are constantly worsening my interactions with them, bombarding me with new and innovative forms of psychological warfare designed to trick me into giving them my money in exchange for something I don’t really need.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re describing alienation. You give power to an entity alien to you/the community. You could have mitigated the disturbances in your neighborhood together with your community. Sending the cops wont fix the issue systemically, though. The best they can do is take someone away.

      All these services don’t need a hierarchical state.

      The state is the entity protecting these corporations by enforcing their property rights.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        So… If the police force is made of local people who are from your community and the sheriff is an elected official from the community…? It’s not like the feds are coming for these purposes.

        The cops are always around, and seems like a pretty systemic fix to me.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Then the cops/sherrif cease to be members of the community, since you’ve introduced a hierarchy. You always know that the cop has power over you or they wouldn’t be a cop.

          The “fix” is about as systemic as constantly taking pain meds for when you alway bonk your head on something. It adresses the symptom, not the underlying issue.

          • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            I guess I don’t understand how hierarchy and community are mutually exclusive especially if hierarchy is granted by and from the community itself.

            If this isn’t the case, why respect family hierarchy either? At 16 if I’m bigger than my dad, fuck him it’s my house now. Basically the only point of removing all hierarchy I can see is that we pass the “violence” part down to everyone instead of deciding to isolate it in the enforcement group.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              I think we have different definitions of hierarchy here. To me, if I have a higher hierarchical position than you, then you ought to do what I tell you, due to my status. If a community delegates violence to a militia, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the militia gets to issue commands on their own.

              • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Are you highlighting the “ought” because it isn’t mandatory to comply?

                Maybe the difference is that you think a policing force makes their own rules or decisions because of the nature of the hierarchy? It sounds like a variant of “who polices the police” and that the answer is the police can never outnumber or overpower the full community from which they are derived. Which I mean yeah I guess that’s fine.

                I personally don’t see the enforcement hierarchy (police or militia) as having power over anyone outside the granted scope of enforcement. That’s bordering on the discussion of police misconduct and government that is too large, which are valid concerns but not really the core issues.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              You do realize that those were condoned by the state, right? That the state actively enabled racism in the so-called US?

              • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                No, they were extrajudicial killings, which by definition means not using the justice system. They were condoned by the communities who performed them. And yeah the state enabled them by not punishing them, but it was the community who made them happen. If the communities hadn’t wanted to lynch people, people wouldn’t have been getting lynched. You think things would have been different in those cases if those southern towns were self-governing collectives?

                Hell, do you think that desegregation ever would have happened in southern towns if there hasn’t been a hierarchical government? The US literally had to send the military to protect black schoolkids in southern towns when they desegregated schools. What do you think would have happened if those communities didn’t have a hierarchical state governing them?

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  No, I think that those killings wouldn’t have happened if there weren’t people in power whose private interests where best served by reinforcing racism. Anger against minorities is usually fostered in order to distract people from class conflict.

                  I don’t know. Maybe the Black Panthers would have entered these communities if the state didn’t sabotage their right for self-defence?

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        All these services don’t need a hierarchical state.

        You think people will just build roads out of the goodness of their hearts? Or pick up trash? Obviously not. Those services have to be performed by somebody who is getting paid, and in order to pay them, you need to levy taxes. Boom, hierarchical state. The rest is just details.

        Like it or not, the world is too big and complicated for everyone to live in self-governing communities anymore. Like imagine applying what you’re suggesting to a densely packed population centre like New York. It makes no sense.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          You think people will just build roads out of the goodness of their hearts?

          No, I think people build roads because they themselves decided in a council that roads needed to be built.

          Or pick up trash?

          You act as if there aren’t whole histories of volunteer work in the world. If you get lost in the alps and mountain rescue saves you, pretty much none of them are getting paid, for example.

          Those services have to be performed by somebody who is getting paid, and in order to pay them, you need to levy taxes.

          I find you lack in societal creativety sad.

          Like imagine applying what you’re suggesting to a densely packed population centre like New York. It makes no sense.

          Imagine trying to manage such a big society by giving decision power to fewer people who can’t possibly fathom the complexity of the system they’re trying to control.

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            Can you explain wtf a council is in your understanding? Because the way I see it there are two possibilities: either it would be literally every member of a community, in which case you’re basically advocating for billions of people to have Jury duty every day for the rest of time, which most people are not going to want. Or else it’s not literally everyone, in which case, congratulations you just reinvented representative democracy.

            Like, most people, myself included, don’t want to be involved in every little decision. So we vote for people to represent our interests in government. Obviously the voting system itself could stand to be improved, but that’s a case for electoral reform and proportional representation, not anarchism.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Councils are made up of interest groups of the population. There are communal councils, work councils of coops, housing councils, garden councils, consumer councils, etc.

              Attendance is not mandatory, put highly encouragen through the social structure surrounding these councils. My worker’s council cohorts are my friends, my goworkers, etc.

              Big decisions are decided on via federation. E.g. every communal council sends of delegates to regional council, which sends delegates to a national council, and so on.

              The difference to parliamentary representation is the type of delegation: Representatives have what you call a “free mandate”: they only are subject to their own conscience (and the law, of course). If I vote for a representative for their strong stance against puppy butchering, they’re free to butcher as many puppies as they like, once they are elected.

              Compare that with an imperative mandate (which social anarchists propose): Your position as a delegate depends on you carrying out the will of the body that elected you. If you defy that imperative, you lose your position as a delegate.

              • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                The difference to parliamentary representation is the type of delegation: Representatives have what you call a “free mandate”: they only are subject to their own conscience (and the law, of course). If I vote for a representative for their strong stance against puppy butchering, they’re free to butcher as many puppies as they like, once they are elected.

                IMO that free mandate is a good thing. Sometimes people need to adapt to changing circumstances. Like for example, if a government was reducing healthcare funding and then a pandemic broke out, I’d want them to make a snap decision. And most people don’t want to have to participate in all aspects of governing. We elect people to represent us.

                Again, everything you’re describing is workable within representative democracy and that’s significantly less of a hassle for the average person. You claim the state is alienating but then advocate for everyone to feel social pressure to participate in these councils? That sounds miserable.

                You’re just reinventing government but in a form where it’s less efficient, more annoying, and can’t get things done. The current system is so much better than what you’re describing I can’t fathom how someone could see it any other way. Especially as things scale up. Again, imagine if New York was operated in the way you’re describing. You think millions of people are going to just harmoniously self-govern? No. That’s why we elect municipal and higher levels of government to make decisions for us. And yeah they have a free mandate but they also have another election coming up, so if people don’t like what they do they can elect someone else next time.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Why do you think that those changing circumstances can’t be handled in a federated manner?

                  I’m using the proper definition of alienation.

                  Free mandates make the system succeptible to lobbyism/corruption. The current system is so great that we’re currently in the process of eliminating our foundation of life on the planet.

                  I don’t think that people will be annoyed by a council system. If they are, they can abstain. But IMHO, the reason people are so fed up with politics is their lack of agency. People are in general very interested inspolitics as long as it concerns them and they have agency. Councils should alleviate both of those issues.

                  You think millions of people are going to just harmoniously self-govern? No.

                  Why not? Remember that the sa?e thing was basically said of the peasantry in feudal times: that people are incapable of being in control of politics. There’s no reason to suggest that the current system is the best it can get.

                  4 years or longer is one hell of a lot of time to screw things up. If you’re only participating in democracy once every four years, that’s not much of a democracy. And don’t gst me started on the lack of democracy in economics.

                  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Why not? Remember that the sa?e thing was basically said of the peasantry in feudal times: that people are incapable of being in control of politics. There’s no reason to suggest that the current system is the best it can get.

                    I really hope you understand why that isn’t at all the same thing. In one case it was people advocating for authority derived from the people rather than from birthright. Here you are just advocating for power derived from more people and with less structure. But both systems still derive their power from the people. I’m not talking about flawed democracies like The US. But the idealized concept of a representative democracy. It works just fine.

                    People won’t harmoniously self govern because human nature creeps in. Tribalism happens. Nazis happen. COVID deniers happen. Lynch mobs happen. Mob rule is rule by the basest human instincts, and that isn’t pretty. Humans are not fundamentally righteous, especially not when operating in groups. Not everyone agrees on what the social contract should be, and that’s exactly why it’s helpful to have rules that govern how people need to conduct themselves in a society. Obviously not everyone agrees with those rules all the time, but the fundamental idea of having rules at all is still valuable.

                    Most people don’t want to have to take such an active role in public policy, and are perfectly happy to delegate to someone else. We all have issues with how our representatives actually do their jobs, but those problems are fixable within the current systems. And since the system you’re describing only works if everyone is onboard, it’s never going to happen. Most people don’t want anarchy, they want structure.

                    Again, what you’re describing sounds basically like jury duty; having to uproot my actual daily life in order to go be part of a meeting with literally a million people (the population of my city) over basic public services. People get bogged down in details all the time. I don’t want to listen to a million people bikeshedding.

                    So much of what you’re describing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And for a system which, to be frank, sounds monumentally inefficient, impractical, unpleasant, and alienating, especially at larger scales.