You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes
No. *There are too many cases where the interpretation of law is selective", and/or “there are too many cases where the enforcement of law is being selective”. There are no laws (that I know of, correct me if I’m wrong) that say “if you’re rich, this doesn’t apply to you”, or something like that.
I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.
Aside from being reductive, yes, I’m an anarchist. I’m not opposed to writing down some rules, but I am opposed to the coercive use of force to impose them on others. It is possible to organize a system of preventative and restorative justice without the use of a hierarchy.
This video is a good introduction to how justice can work in an anarchist society.
Anarchism is probably the most naive of all the available systems. It’s like it’s been designed by someone who’s never met any other human being outside of a very small, and very tight friends circle.
You have it backwards. We didn’t invent civilisation and then the ruling class decided to oppress the working class by inventing laws. We had an honour system, but because people are greedy cunts, we had to gradually replace it with a law system. And because people are greedy cunts, many of them being plain evil, we had to add an enforcement system (which used to be angry mobs).
Like, what do you think religions are? These are early, pre-“formal law” attempts at ensuring people behave according to rules, allowing for the growth of the community.
Think about it - you’re complaining that the enforcement of law is not equal for everybody, meaning that some individuals are effectively exempt from being affected by law, and you know that the 1% on the top are practically all in that group, you can clearly see how this 1% is fucking over the entire world… all of which you conclude by saying “there should be no laws for nobody”… Make it make sense.
EDIT - fuck it, I’ll watch the video and comment on it here through edits.
4:03 - “prisons are for holding people”
This approach is so hilariously US-centric that it puts the entire premise to question. Yes, the US considers it “job done” when they send someone to prison, because US is a failed state that prioritises profit over prosperity. Prisons are private, meaning “more incarcerated == more money”. But first world countries like Norway or Switzerland prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration to society.
USA has a 75% recidivism (2 year reconviction) rate, which is insane. Compare that to Norway (20%), Sweden (25%), Denmark (27%), Finland (30%), Germany (33%), or Iceland (35%), and you see that it’s not the system that’s at fault, it’s just the insanity of USA.
4:40 - “police are bad and ineffective, m’kay”
Same as above - a third world country guy complaining that the system doesn’t work. Well, it works in first world countries.
The World Internal Security and Police Index (WISPI), which evaluates police capacity, process, legitimacy, and outcomes across 125 countries, gives you a pretty good context:
5:40 - “Crime is a product of hierarchical social relations…”
“… specifically a legal order with the authority to categorise actions as either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’”
Holy shit, “solving the problem of crime by missing the point”, I’m absolutely dumbfounded that someone unironically said these words with the intent of making a legitimate point…
The proposed solution is equally childish. “We believe that laws are not necessary because if everybody believes in anarchism and adhering to social norms, laws will not be necessary”.
7:20 - the Ludovic Nkoth quote
Yeah, if we completely forget the entirety of human history (or are ignorant to it), that quote slaps.
Again: laws were created as the response to the lack of general social concern with the avoidance of harm. Or, well, not “general”, but prominent enough that having a group of people that protects the weaker from harm, and then codifying what actions are permitted or not became a necessity.
7:30 - mediation as conflict resolution
Look at what’s currently going on with Venezuela, Greenland, Palestine, and Ukraine. Do you think that mediation was not attempted here? Do you think that laws caused these?
7:50 - transformative justice
And how will you protect the victim without a security force?
How will you protect the community without a fighting force?
How will you work with the “harmful actor” if the harmful actor is Putin or Trump?
Around 8:40 - socialism as the solution to most forms of crime
Sure, I agree. But you literally cannot create socialism without a state, because, if nothing else, you need logistics to transport goods between communities. Without a state there will never be the finances for that. It’s another thing that anarchists completely forget about - taxes keep your roads and pavements in workable order. No state == no taxes == civil infrastructure goes to shit == fragmentation of communities.
9:28 - food safety standards?
Regulations?? In my anarchism??
How do you create (and enforce) regulations without state?
11:30 - the state cannot protect us from bad people
This is probably one of the most ridiculous statements in the history of mankind.
“Law enforcement in the US sucks, capitalism breeds greed, and people at the top tend to commit crimes with impunity due to the accumulated power, therefore state is completely powerless against bad people”
Like… Fuck me, even in a third world country such as US, locking a rapist behind bars protects women from him.
11:50 - “policing attracts rot”
Again, “things are bad in the US therefore things must be equally bad planet-wide”. Absolutely childish approach.
16:40 - game theory and radical solidarity
Once more - how do you retaliate to harm against self or others if there’s no state to support you? Let’s say you’re an academic (ignoring, for a moment, the fact that academy wouldn’t exist without state). Your friends are, therefore, academics. Not the most athletic people, right? You are robbed by a group of violent thugs.
How do you or your social circle handle that, exactly?
17:05 - “I believe we can expect…”
Yeah, that’s an excellent basis for introducing anarchy. Belief and expectation. Absolutely bullet-proof methodology here.
17:21 - Retaliatory strategies -> consequences
Yeah, there’s no retaliation or consequences without enforcement, there’s no enforcement without state. Or rather: there’s no equal enforcement. The thugs from the previous example will have zero issues retaliating and bringing consequences for bad actions taken against them. Academics though? They’re just perpetual victims.
18:18 - social boycott
Jesus Christ, is this guy twelve? Go on and social boycott the Proud Boys, or the Ku-Klux Klan, see how well that works.
The rest seems to be just rehashing these points.
So, yeah, it’s a prime example of a person who is ignorant (missing a lot of context) and hyperfocused on the issues in his immediate surroundings lashing out in an extreme way against these issues, completely ignoring (or just not being aware) that their situation is not universal.
When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.
The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.
In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.
It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.
Most people who look to extreme solutions tend to be hyperfocused on their immediate surroundings without paying attention to the fact that alternative solutions or states exist.
For instance - the US or UK law and law enforcement systems are faulty (to put it extremely mildly), sure… But that doesn’t mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it means we should look to, and take inspiration from, more positive examples. Countries such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland have judicial systems and law enforcement systems that people can (mostly) count on, and trust them.
There’s a massive gulf between “the purpose of a law existing” and “a law being enforced”.
I know you don’t work in the field because you have no idea how absolutely, ridiculously hilarious this statement is. :D
Also, calling drug dealers “working class” is certainly a vibe…
Are you from the US?
The laws ARE universal. But because humans are humans (therefore: shitty), they’re not being universally or equally enforced.
And none of this changes the fact that laws do not, in fact, “exist for [no] other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group”.
“The purpose of a system is what it does.”
You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
No. *There are too many cases where the interpretation of law is selective", and/or “there are too many cases where the enforcement of law is being selective”. There are no laws (that I know of, correct me if I’m wrong) that say “if you’re rich, this doesn’t apply to you”, or something like that.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.
Wait… Do you think that “any law system” is essentially evil and only anarchism will save us…?
Aside from being reductive, yes, I’m an anarchist. I’m not opposed to writing down some rules, but I am opposed to the coercive use of force to impose them on others. It is possible to organize a system of preventative and restorative justice without the use of a hierarchy.
This video is a good introduction to how justice can work in an anarchist society.
Anarchism is probably the most naive of all the available systems. It’s like it’s been designed by someone who’s never met any other human being outside of a very small, and very tight friends circle.
You have it backwards. We didn’t invent civilisation and then the ruling class decided to oppress the working class by inventing laws. We had an honour system, but because people are greedy cunts, we had to gradually replace it with a law system. And because people are greedy cunts, many of them being plain evil, we had to add an enforcement system (which used to be angry mobs).
Like, what do you think religions are? These are early, pre-“formal law” attempts at ensuring people behave according to rules, allowing for the growth of the community.
Think about it - you’re complaining that the enforcement of law is not equal for everybody, meaning that some individuals are effectively exempt from being affected by law, and you know that the 1% on the top are practically all in that group, you can clearly see how this 1% is fucking over the entire world… all of which you conclude by saying “there should be no laws for nobody”… Make it make sense.
EDIT - fuck it, I’ll watch the video and comment on it here through edits.
4:03 - “prisons are for holding people”
This approach is so hilariously US-centric that it puts the entire premise to question. Yes, the US considers it “job done” when they send someone to prison, because US is a failed state that prioritises profit over prosperity. Prisons are private, meaning “more incarcerated == more money”. But first world countries like Norway or Switzerland prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration to society.
USA has a 75% recidivism (2 year reconviction) rate, which is insane. Compare that to Norway (20%), Sweden (25%), Denmark (27%), Finland (30%), Germany (33%), or Iceland (35%), and you see that it’s not the system that’s at fault, it’s just the insanity of USA.
4:40 - “police are bad and ineffective, m’kay”
Same as above - a third world country guy complaining that the system doesn’t work. Well, it works in first world countries.
The World Internal Security and Police Index (WISPI), which evaluates police capacity, process, legitimacy, and outcomes across 125 countries, gives you a pretty good context:
5:11 - “prisons are for torture and abuse”
Again, projecting the state of USA on the rest of the world.
5:40 - “Crime is a product of hierarchical social relations…”
“… specifically a legal order with the authority to categorise actions as either ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’”
Holy shit, “solving the problem of crime by missing the point”, I’m absolutely dumbfounded that someone unironically said these words with the intent of making a legitimate point…
The proposed solution is equally childish. “We believe that laws are not necessary because if everybody believes in anarchism and adhering to social norms, laws will not be necessary”.
7:20 - the Ludovic Nkoth quote
Yeah, if we completely forget the entirety of human history (or are ignorant to it), that quote slaps.
Again: laws were created as the response to the lack of general social concern with the avoidance of harm. Or, well, not “general”, but prominent enough that having a group of people that protects the weaker from harm, and then codifying what actions are permitted or not became a necessity.
7:30 - mediation as conflict resolution
Look at what’s currently going on with Venezuela, Greenland, Palestine, and Ukraine. Do you think that mediation was not attempted here? Do you think that laws caused these?
7:50 - transformative justice
And how will you protect the victim without a security force?
How will you protect the community without a fighting force?
How will you work with the “harmful actor” if the harmful actor is Putin or Trump?
Around 8:40 - socialism as the solution to most forms of crime
Sure, I agree. But you literally cannot create socialism without a state, because, if nothing else, you need logistics to transport goods between communities. Without a state there will never be the finances for that. It’s another thing that anarchists completely forget about - taxes keep your roads and pavements in workable order. No state == no taxes == civil infrastructure goes to shit == fragmentation of communities.
9:28 - food safety standards?
Regulations?? In my anarchism??
How do you create (and enforce) regulations without state?
11:30 - the state cannot protect us from bad people
This is probably one of the most ridiculous statements in the history of mankind.
“Law enforcement in the US sucks, capitalism breeds greed, and people at the top tend to commit crimes with impunity due to the accumulated power, therefore state is completely powerless against bad people”
Like… Fuck me, even in a third world country such as US, locking a rapist behind bars protects women from him.
11:50 - “policing attracts rot”
Again, “things are bad in the US therefore things must be equally bad planet-wide”. Absolutely childish approach.
16:40 - game theory and radical solidarity
Once more - how do you retaliate to harm against self or others if there’s no state to support you? Let’s say you’re an academic (ignoring, for a moment, the fact that academy wouldn’t exist without state). Your friends are, therefore, academics. Not the most athletic people, right? You are robbed by a group of violent thugs.
How do you or your social circle handle that, exactly?
17:05 - “I believe we can expect…”
Yeah, that’s an excellent basis for introducing anarchy. Belief and expectation. Absolutely bullet-proof methodology here.
17:21 - Retaliatory strategies -> consequences
Yeah, there’s no retaliation or consequences without enforcement, there’s no enforcement without state. Or rather: there’s no equal enforcement. The thugs from the previous example will have zero issues retaliating and bringing consequences for bad actions taken against them. Academics though? They’re just perpetual victims.
18:18 - social boycott
Jesus Christ, is this guy twelve? Go on and social boycott the Proud Boys, or the Ku-Klux Klan, see how well that works.
The rest seems to be just rehashing these points.
So, yeah, it’s a prime example of a person who is ignorant (missing a lot of context) and hyperfocused on the issues in his immediate surroundings lashing out in an extreme way against these issues, completely ignoring (or just not being aware) that their situation is not universal.
When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.
The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.
In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.
It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.
Most people who look to extreme solutions tend to be hyperfocused on their immediate surroundings without paying attention to the fact that alternative solutions or states exist.
For instance - the US or UK law and law enforcement systems are faulty (to put it extremely mildly), sure… But that doesn’t mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it means we should look to, and take inspiration from, more positive examples. Countries such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland have judicial systems and law enforcement systems that people can (mostly) count on, and trust them.