If someone sexually abuse in anarchism society, who will punish the sex offender instead of police?

Okey. All disputes are settled in The Thunderdome then. Let the proverbial gods decide who's in the right.

Thunderdome is pretty hype I've heared.

etc

TFW when someone doesn't know what anarchy is.

You do realize that the whole point of anarchy is the total absence of laws in general, right? It's a retarded thought, but you're making yourself out to be even more autistic by not googling that there are no laws or morals in anarchy. That's the fuckin' point.

So you're admitting that anarchist societies are basically going to be ghettos where mob rule is law? Not helping your case, buddy

Not him but:

How else did you think that would work? Are you against anarchy because you're one of the people who'd be immediately exterminated from the gene pool thanks to your dying brain? :^]

Comatoast plz stop promoting mob rule which will lead to innocents being punished.

People's Self Defense Unit. Offender gets temporarily banished to the nearby Criminal's Canton. This functions much like those idyllic Norwegian farming prisons where they self-sustain and live a mostly normal life, just separate from the rest of society.

Because that NEVER happens with the current system.

Probably the community and/or family's victim. What would happen with the offender really would depends and vary, since anarchism is not a coherent, linear, closed system.

Just because people get killed under our current system of non-genocide doesnt mean you should encourage genocide.

Same with punishment. Just because our current system is kinda bad sometimes doesnt mean you should promote and even shittier system.

Huray for blood feuds. I love old timey morals.

Wew lad, calm down. The Holocaust had a system too, y'know. Systems and genocide ain't mutually exclusive.

Good answer.

There's nothing unanarchic about defending the community against one who intends to harm people. Rape is an authoritarian action, it's be unanarchic not to restrain a rapist.

lrn2read

it was an analogy

Then it was a shit analogy that doesn't make sense.

Don't know if America is different, but rape is more common in low-income neighborhoods where I'm from. Also small rural communities where police are scarce are rape hotspots. Middle-class suburbs are without a doubt the safest areas.

Private security will tackle you and the cops send you to prison?

Literally the easiest thing in the world?

I'm going to rape An-Fem just to prove you wrong.

I can kick AnFem's ass. What now?

I will rape you, and enslave or shoot you. In the name of le justice of the commune :^)

AskAnarchism is that way.
Seriously, it seems like that's the only thing people ever ask there

t. I've never read any anarchist lit

Read it as "if someone sexually abuses the anarchism"

Punishment is barbaric, cruel, and often counterproductive. The question you should be asking is, "how do we prevent sexual abuse (and violence in general) in an anarchist society?"

The answer is to have a not-a-state responsible for providing adequate mental health care.

but thats wrong though

no rulers != no rules

A militia

Me.

Lol, nice historical and material asynchronism.

the paradox of democratic confederalism is that if your local council votes for the abuser to be skinned then 1, you fucked your local anarchist project up 2, he will indeed be skinned.

rape is a biological act. legalize prostitution and/or develop good sexbots.

"sexual abuse" is a vague term, please be more specific.

Women won't be socially conditioned to believe they're weaker than men, so they will fight men off. Men won't be taught from birth that it's their right to have women, so fewer of them will try.

wew lad

No. In such a system, people will be much more peaceful, but one or two violent freaks will still exist. By which I mean one or two within each thousand. You won't have gang rapes in broad daylight any more, but opportunistic sociopaths encouraged by horniness as well as sadists will still exist.

Spooks.

If you have a society with people going around raping all the time, your society sucks tankie.

But that's just your opinion man.

Your means of reproduction belong to the collective. Collective gives agency over your sexual consent to the vanguard party to establish dictatorship of the proleteriat. Collective leadership of the vanguard party is not free to utilize your asshole.

If someone has violently raped 15 kids, they will be rapidly lynched; if they stole candy from the kitchen a few times, they will get extra work to compensate.

Punishment would honestly make a lot more sense without government, because bureaucracy makes punishment nonsensical.

What is wrong with mob rule?

It's apt to be wrong.

What about the ugly-shit personality manlets that can only get laid via paid whores, once prostitution is abolished?

Whereas the system we have is apt to be corrupt as a corrupt thing that's riddled with corruption. Can you conclusively demonstrate that one is worse than the other?

Or we can just have an organized official way to enact justice, something else than mob justice without any kind of trial.

Are you suggesting we do away with due process?

This is one of the reasons I can't get behind anarchism. So many people have too wide of a view of what they consider sexually acceptable and it will just lead to a lunch mob instead of fair justice.

It's even worse than that. He's saying

Why would we abolish prostitution? Women have the right to share their means of production with others.

You mean their means of reproduction?

Exactly. What communism will achive is remove pimping from prostituion so women can whore themselves without someone owning them.

We wouldn't abolish it so much as it would cease to make any sense once we achieve communism and post-scarcity. What would you trade for sex?

Some goods you personally own, idk. Vouchers? Whatever is gonna be used lul

But it's not prostitution if it's not a service you're providing for money. In that case it's just having lots of sex.

But in FALC the woman could acquire anything you would give her at her request.

Sounds familiar.

Good point, I guess. We'd just call it something else…

What if you had something good to offer just for sex? It doesn't have to be a material posession. I'm talking about purely sex here, not relatinoship or dating btw.

But if all goods and services are available on request for free, what would the john have to offer that she couldn't just get for free?

if you look at the jake appelbaum thing you'll see that mob rule doesn't work (in case you missed it, all of it was bs), and if you look at the bradley manning and shillary thing you'll see that government-controlled courts don't work.

i don't see what new problems could arise in what and others suggested with people's courts and liberal prisons.
and anons are right to say that in a freeer society there would be less sexual and other frustration that leads to violence and crime .

Work, of course. A plumber comes to fix a girl's sink and gets sex in return.

Anarchism will make vintage porn real.

So what if they're not socially conditioned to believe whatever? They're still weaker.

I'm not an anarchist systemically, though in spirit I probably am. I believe in striving for a communistic state of society (i.e what anarchism also, wants to achieve).

Within that system, material distraught will be more or less gone. As abundance occurs, it will be available to the people. Food, shelter, etc. will not be an issue. Most things that are considered damaging towards others will be lessened (all economic crime, for instance, will be gone, completely), they won't be gone - however.

There might still be people born into, and caught up in really dominating personal circumstances, being controlled by a manipulative personality. However, as opposed to the society in which we live in now - where the flow of life is economically determined (how prosperous you are in the current economic paradigm determines how far you are allowed to travel or walk away from your birth circumstances), in a state of communism within a society where food, shelter, infrastructure and general sharing of the abundance available right now via actually existing industrialization and technology (no future tech needed) and automation already available, in a society based on a union of socialist republics, none of these things would be a hinderance. In addition, to that, some sort of awareness amongst the communities and some sort of central administrative checkbook on how things are going would enable the light to be shone on these dark and isolated "holes" that people, might, be born into.

The point is that it would be much less likely to occur, as the pressures that would escalate insanity would be lessened, and that upon arriving into such a setting - the escape and the free movement of ones person with no added "you can't survive without me taking care of you (economically)" - wouldn't exist.

And in addition, to that, as society at large would not be focused or be caught up in the continual ignoring of these factors and horrible lives as they go about their daily business (as in the contemporary world) just trying to make it through, they'd be much more likely to both intervene communally as well as trying to reach out and aid you in your escape from the (still existing, even in a state of communism) horror of falling prey to an abusive personality.

It really has nothing to do about punishing demons while living in hell. It has more to do about getting people out of hell.

Like…sex?

You would have to trade yourself, which would require making yourself appealing to your partner.

Oh wait.

Except no they're not. Honestly, sometimes it's like I'm on Holla Forums.

so basically incels will just eventually crack and rape a girl in a communist society

im tired of this idpol bullshit

In communism women won't have to trade sex for resources or find a "good man" to help raise the kids, since both problems will be solved communally. The only thing left to determine who has sex with whom is mutual interest. With all that shit out of the way, women will gravitate toward the sexiest men, who will be more than happy to do nothing but fuck women all day. Only the ugliest uggos of women will get turned down, leaving the bottom 90% of men with the bottom 10% of women. Now watch as the incels (overwhelming majority of men) join to overthrow the meanie chads so they can get their dicks wet. This is the real reason why communism will always fail.

Are you fucking kidding me? Is this bait? Have you ever lifted a weight in your life? Women are objectively weaker and slower than men. Even the weakest most effeminate man could overpower the vast majority of women. There are different divisions in every single sport for that exact reason. Wrap your ideology around this reddit thread fam: reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/

empiricist pls go

If Maya Angelou is any authority, the volunteers.

Seriously, the world used to be a lot different, and modern day Justice is an experiment.

Do not respond to anfem. He does not into logic and is just a troll.

Anarchists don't punish, they talk things out, like how you can talk a mentally-challenged individual out of smoking crack.

Well, I'm trying to talk my friend out of his use of opiods right now, and jail won't help because prison addiction rates are even higher than among the general population.

So please, enlighten me: how do you approach this if not by talking?

...

Is the opioid use negatively affecting his life?

Connecting with an addict is exactly how you fix them you knuckle-dragging mongoloid. Drugs are a coping mechanism for alienation.

I buy him food every other day because he can't hold five dollars.

Give him LSD.

researchgate.net/profile/Pal-Orjan_Johansen/publication/221692919_Lysergic_acid_diethylamide_(LSD)_for_alcoholism_Meta-analysis_of_randomized_controlled_trials/links/0deec51c2c5497156d000000.pdf

Fuck man, I and an old gf went through that and it was awful. I managed to get clean because I had a friend who gave me a place to stay and pull out of it but the gf couldn't stop and ended up killing herself a few months later. Hope shit works out with your friend.

Leftists like to pretend that 0% of drug users are scared straight after a night in jail, while at the same time claiming that only a small fraction of users become hardcore addicts. They say silly things like how every drug offender is in jail for a non-violent offense. The truth is, this "non-violent offense" idea was used to protest against Gloria Steinem's prison sentence. And Gloria Steinem was an admitted CIA agent.

Wanna know how I know you're a Holla Forumsyp?

Vigilante justice, and harsh work punishments being dished out from not a state.

Sounds amazing

Not from around here, are ya?
hyperbole
eliciting desired behavior through trauma ignores the underlying issue that caused the problem behavior in the first place and will at best cause them to act out in some other way
nigga these people spend years, often decades in prison
nothing contradictory about those claims, and the predisposition to addiction mostly comes from circumstance. the point of drugs is to dull the pain from being unable to fulfill social needs
no, when someone says "non-violent drug offender" they do not mean all drug offenders are non-violent. that would make it redundant to say the "non-violent" part. Non-violent drug offenders are a subset of drug offenders.
that's just genetic fallacy, it has zero substance with regard to the validity of the argument

Leftists must be some kind of tribe, I guess.

This is the implication.

If some imbecile gets drunk, smokes crack and then rapes teenage girls, should I sit and wonder whether I'm just misunderstanding his motivations?

Long prison sentences are not given due to the offense, they are due to likelihood of becoming a danger to others, or of being non-responsive to other forms of intervention. This doesn't happen because of "class struggle." It happens when irresponsible radicals teach children to aggressively oppose towards anyone who isn't on the "front lines" of the revolution. When the legal system hands out decades-long prison sentences to teenage kids it is responding to the demands of people living in the neighborhoods who feel defenseless.

Lemme guess, the most frequent predisposition is class struggle. Communists tend to say things like "everyone is unique because they have unique circumstances." No, everyone is unique because they are unique. It's not logical to assert that identical circumstances produce identical character flaws because there's no empirical reproducible evidence for such claims.

The oft-parroted statistic is that at least 70% of all prison sentences are for non-violent drug crimes. The truth is, someone who is addicted enough to get busted and serve 10 years is likely have had a violent experience at some point, and most drug dealers either use violence themselves or are under a constant threat of violence from others. Usually the implication is that marijuana is a sedative and The State put boots on people's necks for driving while munching, which is not true at all.

That wasn't an argument in favor of imprisonment. It's illustrating the underlying motivation of liberals who want to legalize all drugs. You're gonna say it's only marijuana, but that's only a concession to make their argument sound more reasonable. At one point they said that intravenous drugs should be legalized and that the government should hand out free needles.

A mean of production is a non human input in the process of production, so people's body aren't.

I'm not even going to bother responding to all this shit except to say you should probably go read a book, literally any book.

1. This board is for leftists, not liberals.
2. Liberals do not want to legalize any drugs because keeping them illegal benefits their corporate masters.
3. The idea of a drug being illegal is absurd and treating drug use as a crime instead of an illness only does additional harm.

Everything you posted is stupid, but this sentence stood out to me.

On a scientific basis, men have the potential to be more powerful than women. but that isn't granted to them genetically by default. A female power-lifter will still be stronger than some limp-wristed NEETsoc. But if a male powerlifts he will be stronger, assuming no genetic defect preventing him comes into play.

Good things guns will be allowed in anarchist society. There's a reason we call guns "the great equalizer."

Real life is not a sport. Upper body strength will not save you from getting raped, knowing self-defense will, and a physically fit male that doesn't know how to fight will always be at a disadvantage to someone physically fit of either sex that does.
There is also the fact that women are capable of running very long distances in one go, which is pretty useful for survival.