DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Anarchist take on gun control

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 10 2007 12:00
knightrose wrote:
Actually I don't think it'll have laws as such. What it won't have as well is money, which will end the tyranny of buying and selling of anything. It will have customs and practice.

Oh christ. The fear of common use language. If there's a consequence to violating the "customs and practices" its no different than regulations and laws. If there's no consequences then surely tyrrany will rise again (to paraphrase a famous american).

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2007 12:24

Revol - I'm more concerned by your implication that there will be buying and selling. And that's the essence of communism and the reason gangsters and politicians will lose their power.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2007 12:33

How can there be a trade in anything without a market economy? If there is a trade then there is no communism.

I think your sloppy terminology is a problem. Of course there will have to be rules about how things are done. People will need to prove they can drive, for example, or prove they are fit to perform surgery. But who is going to enforce it?

Isn't it more likely that a communist society will lead to a change in consciousness and ways of working. I'm assuming you share a materialist understanding of the world and don't just think ideas drop out of the sky.

The problem with too many discussions on this forum is that posters have no conception of how human behaviour changes when material conditions change. (and that's called marxism, not liberalism)

In any event I'm in favour of gun control and have no problem with some drugs.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2007 12:52

Are you positing a society based on buying and selling? Or one based on barter? Or equal wages? Or what?

Of course we won't just erase trade. But that will be what communism will aim at, surely?

I'd guess that communities that had the confidence and self consciousness to destroy capitalism would have within themselves the ability to control drugs.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 10 2007 13:07

I kind of imagine that a revolution will take an awful lot of effort by an awful lot of people. I also consider that consciousness changes as a result of activity. Hence revoltuion is the process that changes the way people think and act. Surely that's basic?
I guess that during the revolutionary process we'd probably find ways of dealing with gangsters and other capitalists who don't show the sense to do what they are told. Put any spin on that you want.
After a revolution consciousness will continue to evolve. Anyone trying to go back to a trading economy would have to be dealt with. Primarily, I'd guess by not trading with them. But also in a genuine society made up of social beings, then the confidence would exist to not say, "that's someone else's problem".
Probably the answer is that no drugs would be "illegal", but if society were less alienating we'd have less need of them.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 10 2007 13:12
knightrose wrote:
I kind of imagine that a revolution will take an awful lot of effort by an awful lot of people. I also consider that consciousness changes as a result of activity. Hence revoltuion is the process that changes the way people think and act. Surely that's basic?
I guess that during the revolutionary process we'd probably find ways of dealing with gangsters and other capitalists who don't show the sense to do what they are told. Put any spin on that you want.
After a revolution consciousness will continue to evolve. Anyone trying to go back to a trading economy would have to be dealt with. Primarily, I'd guess by not trading with them. But also in a genuine society made up of social beings, then the confidence would exist to not say, "that's someone else's problem".
Probably the answer is that no drugs would be "illegal", but if society were less alienating we'd have less need of them.

But trade would be "illegal" right? So there would be those pesky "laws" and such?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 10 2007 14:58
revol68 wrote:
it will have fucking laws...

if some nonce is bucking kids they are in breach of the law...

Well, just so long that the fucking laws don't prohibit cunnilingus...

The_Accursed_Share's picture
The_Accursed_Share
Offline
Joined: 17-03-07
Apr 10 2007 18:11
revol68 wrote:
the problem with that theory is that it's not 1794 and the state is much more than armed groups of men. Surely we would seek to have demorcatic [sic] structures for the control of firearms, instead of this bourgeois individulist [sic] shit about the "right to bear arms".

It is very true that the state and its weapons cache make even the most packin' Utah militias look like a hippie commune, but the idea that the right to bear arms is "bourgeois individualist shit" and should be overridden by a democratic structure (i.e., a state) seems to me to be contrary to anarchist ideals and the product of a bourgeois individualist who wishes to impose his or her will on others.

mockbill's picture
mockbill
Offline
Joined: 5-04-07
Apr 10 2007 23:21

guydebordisdead: I COMPLETELY agree with you. The idea that we have to put the individual forward because the state is bad will not improve the state, only the individual egoism (and economic anarchy that characterized capitalism).

888 wrote:
Anyway my take on gun control in the current society is that it should be minimised, I can see the pragmatic issue of reducing accidents (control won't reduce crime) but can't abide strengthening the state

I do not agree with you 888, I believe that you strengthen the NRA more than you strengthen the state. As the lobbies control the state in the USA, so I don't see the point.

And anyway, giving away guns does not even strengthen the state:

- cops also would have less of an excuse to kill people. It is easier to kill a black guy, escaping with a gun in his hand than to kill him without. Contrary to nowadays, it would be clear to everyone if using a gun was justified or not.

- if they have to use guns against people who don't have any, it only shows their failure and their weakness, look at the French police (who, contrary to bobbies, have guns). We don't need guns to protest. To you really feel that in the States you have more power than Europeans against the Government?

On the rest, I agree with revol68. Yes it is people who kill people, not guns, but without guns it would be much harder and less accidents [Edit: would occur], especially involving babies. (I know that in Rwanda machetes were pretty deadly, but still...). It is the pb of culture, yes. But gun culture lol.

Well my argumsentation is pretty shitty, mainly due to a lack of time, but never mind, there are some ideas i hope. All da best,

Mockbill

mockbill's picture
mockbill
Offline
Joined: 5-04-07
Apr 10 2007 23:35

sorry, i deleted part of the message and I did not re-read myself...and if the message criticizes the content, it is just because when i was younger, i was chocked by this poster pro gun control showing a child with a gun in his mouth.
In 1975, 495 deaths of 0-14's but now cut by half, so it wasn't that relevant anyway, don't focus on it please wink

Vasak's picture
Vasak
Offline
Joined: 11-04-07
Apr 11 2007 06:02

As an Alaskan, I like my guns. A lot. And I think that the average Joe should be able to own whatever armaments he wants; after all, more people are killed by cars than by guns, but we don't ban cars, do we? Instead of regulating ownership of firearms, I think we should regulate the sale of firearms; find out who is buying what. If a man with a crazy look and a history of crime wants to buy twenty rounds of ten-gauge shot and an Ithica, than something's wrong. We can give people the right to choose and the right to defend themselves without giving them the 'ego-trip' of feeling the need to kill others and themselves. How do we do this? Gun education.

In the States especially, we view the gun as a psychosexual symbol. It can solve any problem, fix any ill, defeat any invader. The idea of attributing emotions, feelings, or significance to an object is self-harmful to the extreme. If we are to take the gun, and educate the masses about it's use, purpouse, and obscura, less people will WANT to own one, and those who do will own theirs responsibly.

patchanga
Offline
Joined: 15-10-06
Apr 11 2007 07:02

Mmm...I guess one needs to get a feel for the spirit of a place before one joins in. I thought this site was all about liberatrian communism but I find it's really just a bunch of middle class kiddies calling each other wankers.

So, the anarchist society of the future will have law and trade, criminalise certain sexual practices, punish people for buying and selling drugs, control who has access to arms in society, be full of yahoos shouting down people who put forward intelligent debate, have the loudest voices shouting that things-will-be-as-I-say-they-will-be and attempting to sideline and eradicate disagreement through force.

It sounds like a truly revolutionary Brave New World. Where do I sign up?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 07:08
patchanga wrote:
I thought this site was all about liberatrian communism but I find it's really just a bunch of middle class kiddies calling each other wankers.

Tag line

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 11 2007 07:48
patchanga wrote:
Mmm...I guess one needs to get a feel for the spirit of a place before one joins in. I thought this site was all about liberatrian communism but I find it's really just a bunch of middle class kiddies calling each other wankers.

perhaps you were joking, but didn't you say shoplifting is your ethical shopping? ethical consumerism (paid for or otherwise) is the middle class shibboleth par excellance, so people in glass houses and that...

patchanga wrote:
So, the anarchist society of the future will have law

this has been under debate, there's hardly a consensus. the 'pro-law' position has been that if there are consequences to breaking 'custom' then it's a law in all but name, and if there aren't it's somewhat toothless. tut tut fred west, it's really not the done thing to murder your nannies and bury them under the floor. and you really should flush the loo after you ... obviously i'd hope there were far fewer serial killers and the like around in a libertarian communist society, but every society has rules whether written down or not, whether you call them laws is somewhat semantic.

patchanga wrote:
and trade

don't think anyone's advocating trade, just saying if you outlaw things a black market will appear if the demand is there.

patchanga wrote:
criminalise certain sexual practices

if english is your first language, you really ought to check for humour, revol used 'fucking' as an expletive, treeofjudas made a pun on it. if english isn't your first language, fair enough. still i fucking hope noncing is criminalised in a libertarian communist society, NAMBLA are counter-revolutionary.

patchanga wrote:
punish people for buying and selling drugs

i thought you were complaining people were pro-trade?

patchanga wrote:
control who has access to arms in society

if that society voted for it. i mean i don't think i have a problem with personal small-arms possession, but i don't think there's some inviolable right to bear arms, far less military-grade weaponary, tanks, nukes etc, and i'd certainly want to 'control' the dispossessed bourgeoisie from having access to arms.

patchanga wrote:
be full of yahoos shouting down people who put forward intelligent debate, have the loudest voices shouting that things-will-be-as-I-say-they-will-be and attempting to sideline and eradicate disagreement through force.

eh?

patchanga wrote:
It sounds like a truly revolutionary Brave New World. Where do I sign up?

have you not noticed that the amalgam you put forward isn't any one person's position, let alone a thread consensus? confused

patchanga
Offline
Joined: 15-10-06
Apr 11 2007 09:34
Quote:
perhaps you were joking, but didn't you say shoplifting is your ethical shopping? ethical consumerism (paid for or otherwise) is the middle class shibboleth par excellance, so people in glass houses and that...

...shouldn't make flippant comments?

Quote:
i thought you were complaining people were pro-trade?

What you thought is one thing. What I was doing is another. Each of the components of my amalgam have either been advocated on this list or exhibited on the list. Shouting people down with insults and wilfully erroneous summaries of what they have written is apparently par for the course, in answer to your 'eh?'. Similarly, reverting to witty irony (preserve of the aspiring middle class...see Billig 2005 for more on this) to attempt to negate valid points (tut tut Fred West).

As for noncing, I don't recognise this word as anything other than a Scare Word from the tabloid mentality. Perhaps you should define it: are adult-child sexual relationships forbidden in the anarchist society...or just those that are based on coercion? If the latter, I think the word is 'rape'.

I didn't complain about people being pro-trade...I just thought that the vision that people were painting bore a lot of resemblance to what we've currently got: laws, trade inequities, "society" (ie the State) controlling what people can or cannot do and seeking to sanction people who go against the 'law'.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 09:44
patchanga wrote:

As for noncing, I don't recognise this word as anything other than a Scare Word from the tabloid mentality. Perhaps you should define it: are adult-child sexual relationships forbidden in the anarchist society...or just those that are based on coercion? If the latter, I think the word is 'rape'.

I don't like to put words in people's mouth so I'm wondering if this statement means you think there are situations where an adult and a child having sex could be other than coercive? Or was I just reading into it badly?

If you do think there could be consensual sexual relations between a child and an adult I'd beinterested in your thoughts on it as thats an argument I've never heard before.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 09:46
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
are adult-child sexual relationships forbidden in the anarchist society...or just those that are based on coercion? If the latter, I think the word is 'rape'.

(oh we got a live one here! should be fun!)

it's not too hard to get consent from a 10 year old, it is however impossible to get meaningful consent to sexual relations as an adult due to the inherent power relation.

So in short, no you won't be allowed to nonce kids.

Revol, your open hatred for anything liberatory in society does nothing but shut down honest debate. Your childish antics are in fact as oppressive as the state itself.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 09:47
revol68 wrote:
i'd be interested in whether he thinks there can be consenual sexual relations between a human and a bear!

Hush.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 11 2007 09:58
patchanga wrote:
...shouldn't make flippant comments?

ok like i said i didn't know if you were joking or not, sorry if i misread but there's always this fella: wink to clarify matters

patchanga wrote:
are adult-child sexual relationships forbidden in the anarchist society...or just those that are based on coercion?

if we define child as someone incapable of giving informed consent, i fucking hope it's forbidden.

anarchism does not mean 'no rules' and forbidding child abuse isn't any more authoritarian than hitting some guy who's trying to bottle you. i mean you seem to suggest rape would carry some sanction, unless i'm misreading, and so be 'against the law' however you want to paraphrase it.

patchanga
Offline
Joined: 15-10-06
Apr 11 2007 14:47

Child-adult sex? Well, it doesn't do much for me. Perhaps we should leave the flippancy to one side....

The reason I raised this point was because of the "noncing" comment made earlier (in essence, there is no way this would be allowed). It reminded me of a anarchist discussion group I went to some years ago in Spain where the topic was "Free Love". I thought FL was getting it on with all and sundry...but then somebody raised the issue of adult-child sexual relationships. Could there be consensual sex between a child and an adult? I have no idea. In the current society that I live in, I'd say no...but, as has been mentioned on another thread, the individual in society is a social construct who is shaped by --and shapes-- the society and the culture in which they find themselves. So, might it be feasible in a future society that is, after all, as different from the current set up as you're likely to find? Possibly.

The real point I am trying to make is that this thread seems to be mainly about what should be banned, controlled, punished and legislated for in an anarchist society.

From my point of view, I would be against any sort of relationship, sexual or other, that was based on coercion. I imagine that in an anarchist society, the people would sanction this sort of behaviour. I don't think that this is the same as legislating. Legislation is usually understood as some sort of codified laws which are usually written down and which are then applied by a certain class of people. An anarchist society would presumably not want this kind of thing to happen. I imagine anarchist "law" as resting heavily on common sense and not requiring codification. I imagine that infractions of such "law" would be met either with spontaneous retribution or the measured and positive action of the community that had suffered as a result.

So, if we mean that coercion and violence against the greater number of people in an enlightened, anarchist society would be resisted and repelled, then I am in agreement. My concerns were more about how this thread was coming up with all the tabloid cliches: "we're anti-dealers, anti-nonces" blah blah blah. Surely, we are anti-coercion and anti-oppression (although from the general tone of these talkboards, I realise that that may be up for question)?

PS. I don't think I'd ever consent to being shagged by a bear...although in the new world, who knows?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 15:17
patchanga wrote:

1. The real point I am trying to make is that this thread seems to be mainly about what should be banned, controlled, punished and legislated for in an anarchist society.

2. I don't think I'd ever consent to being shagged by a bear...although in the new world, who knows?

1. The subject of the thread is anarchist take on gun control so I'd imagine there wouldn't be much surprise if it ventured into other difficult issues around the same concept ie what limitations on the freedom of the individual may be necessary for the freedom of the collective group. No?

2. I gaurantee you won't be invited.

PS. You dodged the question on pedophilia without actually giving much of an answer.

patchanga
Offline
Joined: 15-10-06
Apr 11 2007 15:38
Quote:
You dodged the question on pedophilia without actually giving much of an answer.
Quote:
I'm wondering if this statement means you think there are situations where an adult and a child having sex could be other than coercive? Or was I just reading into it badly?
Quote:
Could there be consensual sex between a child and an adult? I have no idea. In the current society that I live in, I'd say no...but, as has been mentioned on another thread, the individual in society is a social construct who is shaped by --and shapes-- the society and the culture in which they find themselves. So, might it be feasible in a future society that is, after all, as different from the current set up as you're likely to find? Possibly.
The real point I am trying to make is that this thread seems to be mainly about what should be banned, controlled, punished and legislated for in an anarchist society.
From my point of view, I would be against any sort of relationship, sexual or other, that was based on coercion.

I speak Care Bear and am unlikely to be invited into a caring relationship with a bear? Maybe this just isn't my revolution.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 15:45
patchanga wrote:
Quote:
You dodged the question on pedophilia without actually giving much of an answer.
Quote:
I'm wondering if this statement means you think there are situations where an adult and a child having sex could be other than coercive? Or was I just reading into it badly?
Quote:
Could there be consensual sex between a child and an adult? I have no idea. In the current society that I live in, I'd say no...but, as has been mentioned on another thread, the individual in society is a social construct who is shaped by --and shapes-- the society and the culture in which they find themselves. So, might it be feasible in a future society that is, after all, as different from the current set up as you're likely to find? Possibly.
The real point I am trying to make is that this thread seems to be mainly about what should be banned, controlled, punished and legislated for in an anarchist society.
From my point of view, I would be against any sort of relationship, sexual or other, that was based on coercion.

I speak Care Bear and am unlikely to be invited into a caring relationship with a bear? Maybe this just isn't my revolution.

Quoting yourself isn't much of a clarification.

You have no idea, in the future it may very well be fine, your uncomfortable with social limitations of any kind including on pedophilia, but you're against coercive relationships although you can't really say what that would mean?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 11 2007 15:56
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
You have no idea, in the future it may very well be fine, your uncomfortable with social limitations of any kind including on pedophilia, but you're against coercive relationships although you can't really say what that would mean?

that kind of soft headed drivel drives me insane.

But did I translate it right?

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 11 2007 17:39

patchanga:

Quote:
From my point of view, I would be against any sort of relationship, sexual or other, that was based on coercion. I imagine that in an anarchist society, the people would sanction this sort of behaviour. I don't think that this is the same as legislating. Legislation is usually understood as some sort of codified laws which are usually written down and which are then applied by a certain class of people. An anarchist society would presumably not want this kind of thing to happen. I imagine anarchist "law" as resting heavily on common sense and not requiring codification. I imagine that infractions of such "law" would be met either with spontaneous retribution or the measured and positive action of the community that had suffered as a result.

I think legislation would be essential. That's because legislation spells out or codifies society's agreement on whatever the rules are. If it isn't allowed to hire people to be your wage slaves -- to work in some venture doing things but not having an equal right to a say in the decisions -- then this needs to be an explicit rule.

The social, collective self-management of a society is NOT enhanced if individuals can simply "sanction" (engage in violence against) others on their personal whim, without any authorization of a democratic public institution. Moreover, the vigilante conception ("spontaneous retribution" -- and how do you ascertain "spontaneously" someone's guilt, hmm?) of rule enforcement is not necessary for a classless society and would be likely to be quite destructive. It would be liable to being manipulated for purposes of personal revenge or factionalism. There needs to be a publically controlled institution that must adjudicate any and all accusations of violations of the society's agreed upon rules. There needs to be standards of proof, and proof needs to be presented. In other words, there will need to be trials to deal with accusations of criminal conduct. This is necessary precisely in order to protect the freedom of individuals in society, including the freedom of cultural and political minorities.

Moreover, forensics and investigative work, in regard to criminal actions, is a necessary form of work, and there is no reason for it not to be organized as a self-managed work group just like any other form of work. No reason for these people to have guns, tho.

If you don't like the word "law" for the basic rules that have been approved by a society's legislative authority (which might be simply a mass assembly in the case of a small town, or a plebiscite of numerous such assemblies for a city, or a congress of delegates, or whatever), we can invent a new word, call it an "ordinance" or a "public mandate" or whatever. It will still be an enforceable rule.

I'm not sure that banning civilian ownership of guns is going to solve the problem of murder and gun violence in the USA. How do you get the guns out of the hands of the criminal subculture? The murder rate in the USA is four times as high as Canada but the gun ownership rate in Canada is as high as the USA (both countries derive from a white settler "frontier" culture). The murder rate also varies regionally in the USA. The southern states have the highest murder rate, and the northern tier of states along the Canadian border have the lowest (and are more likely to NOT have the death penalty...so deterrence isn't the issue).

t.

patchanga
Offline
Joined: 15-10-06
Apr 11 2007 17:51
Quote:
Quoting yourself isn't much of a clarification.

You didn't ask for clarification. You said that I had evaded the question by providing "not much of an answer".

Quote:
your uncomfortable with social limitations of any kind including on pedophilia, but you're against coercive relationships

You're powers of precis are somewhat lacking. Nowehere did I say I was uncomfortable with social limitations. Nowehere did I say I was uncomfortable with limits being placed on paedophilia. Nowehere did I say I was unclear what constituted a coercive relationship. You're arguing with what you imagined I said.

patchanga
Offline
Joined: 15-10-06
Apr 11 2007 18:39

gatorojinegro
It's always difficult to hypothesise too much about the future society when we are plainly very far from it. I accept what you say about the types of laws etc that may exist. Looking at the Zapatista zones, infractions are dealt with in community assemblies and the focus is less on retribution and more on righting your wrong. I see nothing objectionable in this at all. Obviously, people who offend the community in whatever way need to be held accountable for their actions - but I'd still be wary about having any sort of a codified law. Where I work, we have a grievance procedure, but we don't have a list of possible grievances or causes of grievances. If somebody feels aggrieved by anything (in theory) they can raise a grievance which will be investigated in a set procedure (needless to say, it is investigated by the bosses, so I'm not advocating an exact replica). In short, the procedures for dealing with a problem are established and set down, but the problems don't need to be. This is, I would suggest, far more in keeping with a libertarian approach. It allows each case to be judged on its merits. It avoids the risk of law enforcers. It's a clean break with the current system --necessary because the current system has so many other disagreeable aspects that are intrinsically bound up with it.

Back to theoriginal question about guns: I was a bit too flippant perhaps in my original reply. As far as I'm concerned, 'gun control' is questionable when the people controlling the guns are the enforcers of law and "order" in accordance with the dictates of the political class. Somebody asked whether I was suggesting that we should just ignore the government. No. I'm saying that if anarchism strategy is about raising people's awareness of the values of direct action, relying on the government to control things is hardly the way forward. Much better to close down the gun shops...or at least be seen trying to do just that.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Dec 9 2009 23:34

This is my first time posting here, but I just want to say that I don't see why any person or group with revolutionary politics would actively encourage their class enemy to restrict possession of weapons and thus allow them to further consolidate power...

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Dec 9 2009 23:59

Also it seems like there are two (or more) discussions going on at once; one about whether anarchists should support gun control now (as the original post seemed to be asking) and another about whether gun control would exist in a libertarian communist society. The answer to the first question seems pretty damn obvious, however I'm personally not too sure about the second.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 10 2009 06:59
Raskolnarchy wrote:
This is my first time posting here, but I just want to say that I don't see why any person or group with revolutionary politics would actively encourage their class enemy to restrict possession of weapons and thus allow them to further consolidate power...

It is a very old thread, so I am not sure that you will get much interest. The last post was over two and a half years ago.

I think that the whole thing about the 'right to bear arms' is an American cultural thing, which doesn't at all resonate in Europe, where most people have a very different attitude towards firearms, not one that considers individual liberty, but one that considers the welfare of the collective.

I live in a country where people have a tendency to shoot their guns in the air after finishing matches, which often leads to people being accidentally killed on their balconies. I can see that as one reason why people would argue for restriction of firearms.

The question of revolutionaries attitudes to state control is a different one though.

Oh, and welcome,

Devrim