DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

How would this be dealt with in libertarian com society?

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Aug 1 2005 15:49

Hi

Quote:
What do the anti-institution people think will happen with policing? Certainly there shouldn't be a police force as we know it today, we can and will police ourselves etc,... But what about forensics, and, just in case there is some crime, crime scene investigators? - all skilled jobs that I don't reckon should be done away with

Self managed firms of publicly elected police regulated by neighbourhood councils.

Love

Chris

kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
Aug 1 2005 16:16

i think something like what chris describes, certainly we'd need special forensics teams, investigators and the like

also what i'd suggest as i think some crimes would be controversial it would be usefull to bring people in from outside - i imagine that federations would maintain lists of volunteers with detective training who could be called upon to go to other communes to asist with investigations

i'm actually writing a story at the mo' about a murder investigation in a communist society 8)

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Aug 1 2005 16:35
kalabine wrote:
i'm actually writing a story at the mo' about a murder investigation in a communist society

That does sound cool. Will Freedom publish it?

IMO, police activities should be mingled as much with other roles to avoid creating any kind of police body that has an interest in controlling other people -- even if 'for their own good'.

kalabine
Offline
Joined: 27-03-04
Aug 1 2005 23:18
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:

IMO, police activities should be mingled as much with other roles to avoid creating any kind of police body that has an interest in controlling other people -- even if 'for their own good'.

i agree, which is why they'd have to be part time, recallable and rotatable positions

thaw
Offline
Joined: 3-03-05
Aug 1 2005 23:23

Agree, and do lock them up forever.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Aug 1 2005 23:24

Can't we make them do the dishes?

enriquemessonier
Offline
Joined: 13-05-05
Aug 15 2005 03:19

I thought this was an anarchist discussion board, ot a left-liberal policy making/debate society?

'illness'? Has no one quesionted this concept? there is NO such thing as 'mental' illness, it has little or no physical manifestations. Thomas Szaz anyone? Mighel Foucalt? RD Laing?

No? Oh sorry, theyre all left liberals.

How do you know he 'raped' these kids? thats just what the state said he did. maybe they wanted to have sex with him, but they are by definiton incapable of giving consent (as are all women under the influence of ANY alcohol or drugs, according to current UK legal precedent).

hang on now, hang on. For the life of me, I cannot rememeber the name of that AK Press book about the italian illegalist anarchist/propganda by the deedist. suffice to say, he was about 30, and shagging a 15 year old.

Was he then, a 'paedophile'? in england he would be, but not italy. france? i dont know. i mean, for fucks sake, its all the states rules. Then well get some nonce trying to say 'no its a psychological thing; it means sexual attraction to prepubescent children'.

erm. same boat. the 'dialect if enlightenment'. define 'puberty'. or 'children'. or 'sexuality'. or 'attracted'. in fact, define 'sex'. doe sit have to be vaginal? anal? oral? for how long? Marx will be stroking his beard (amongts other things).

I mean, I can remember as a kid my mothers cats sitting on my lap, and my dick going hard. What does this make me?

'paedophilia'

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Aug 15 2005 08:25
enriquemessonier wrote:
Thomas Szaz anyone? Mighel Foucalt? RD Laing?

I've read books by all these people (clever me), but you're still talking shit. smile

enriquemessonier
Offline
Joined: 13-05-05
Aug 15 2005 09:29

hmmmm, touched a raw merve there.

which coment was it that riled you so? the one about the italian illegalist, or the cat? lol.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Aug 15 2005 11:00

What's wrong with just shooting rapists in the face?

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Aug 15 2005 11:22

Death is too good for them.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Aug 15 2005 11:49
Refused wrote:
Death is too good for them.

I think the least effort expended on them the better. If someone's so dangerous to everyone else that the only other option is to imprison them or have them escorted 24 hours a day, just shoot them, save everyone elses time and energy.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Aug 15 2005 13:49
enriquemessonier wrote:
How do you know he 'raped' these kids? ... maybe they wanted to have sex with him

This is disgusting. Nonce apologists are not welcome here. Take this back, or you're out.

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Aug 15 2005 17:31

what about some sort of moral and social responsiblity towards more vulnerable members of society enrique?

or is all that defined by The Man too rather than personal and collective responsiblity so the only tactic left is to practice intellectual masturbation whilst getting hard ons with cats?

dot
Offline
Joined: 21-08-05
Aug 24 2005 06:35

maybe there's some special brit thing that i'm missing here - but enrique asks some appropriate questions -

like - it's all very well to act like an asylum is more humane than a prison, but as already noted, people do horrible things to other people in the name of "mental health."

like - definitions of rape (especially definitions for the purpose of proving/disproving someone's guilt) are easily manipulated and culturally relative (at their most clear) (which is to say, Not clear).

like - kids are sexual. what is an appropriate response to that fact? some of the same people who are talking about the subtleties of women's sexuality don't seem to be addressing that kid's sexuality is an even more complicated issue. should children who want to be sexual only be allowed to be sexual with same age children? how does that sit with the arguments against some manipulated "egalitarian" understanding of sexuality that adults should be abiding by?

please note, i am not proposing anything. i am only saying that enrique asked questions. they are interesting questions.

and finally, people who take hard lines about intensely complicated topics like the interactions of individuals, sexuality, social groups, and the state (to mention just a few of the players), really don't sound like they've been around the block. it's easy to sound all hard-assed, and it's playing to the choir. the prison system isn't just the court system and the legal system (in which the guilty party and the innocent victim are always clearly delineated) and a bunch of buildings. it is a relationship, a bunch of relationships. changing those relationships is going to take imagination.

(as someone who has done social work and worked with prisoners) i think teams of people who hang out with offenders might really love their work. i think relying on a single person (his partner) to caretake someone is crazy on a number of levels (mostly the idea of making a single person responsible). i think when we get away from a christian-based culture (in which people are either impossibly pure and innocent, or guilty and damned) then we will see a huge difference in how people interact with each other. i don't think we have to look at the most extreme examples of broken people to start having some of those conversations...

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Aug 25 2005 23:27

maybe dot, it was partly to do with the way he asked the questions.

Quote:
I thought this was an anarchist discussion board, ot a left-liberal policy making/debate society?

er no.

Quote:
'illness'? Has no one quesionted this concept? there is NO such thing as 'mental' illness, it has little or no physical manifestations. Thomas Szaz anyone? Mighel Foucalt? RD Laing?

No? Oh sorry, theyre all left liberals.

actually the way in which mental illness is conceptualised has been discussed and challenged on these boards before. if enrique wants to discuss stuff maybe he should knock of insulting people which is what he was intending to do.

Quote:
How do you know he 'raped' these kids? thats just what the state said he did. maybe they wanted to have sex with him, but they are by definiton incapable of giving consent (as are all women under the influence of ANY alcohol or drugs, according to current UK legal precedent).

yes, definitions of rape are easily manipulated and culturally relative. and children are sexual. and it is something that is not recognised in this culture except when its useful. people don't want to see it on the whole, it doesn't fit into the way childhood is constructed.

an appropriate response to the sexuality of children to me would be to recognise that a child before puberty is not physically mature for sex and to recognise that children after puberty are often vulnerable in the society we live in to the power games of adults. because the power basis is potentially so unequal i don't think we can be egalitarian about sexual relationships between adults and children although it is in real life actually a grey area with loads of fuzzy lines. i've seen 14 yr old girls with babies in apparently stable relationships with 30 yr old men in one of my jobs but it doesn't mean i think that that should be normal. because in real life it usually works out shit for the younger person in the end, simply because they end up the most likely to be exploited and end up with shitloads of responsiblity when probably it would be good if they had some time still to mature emotionally and sexually.

Quote:
Was he then, a 'paedophile'? in england he would be, but not italy. france? i dont know. i mean, for fucks sake, its all the states rules. Then well get some nonce trying to say 'no its a psychological thing; it means sexual attraction to prepubescent children'. erm. same boat. the 'dialect if enlightenment'. define 'puberty'. or 'children'. or 'sexuality'. or 'attracted'. in fact, define 'sex'. doe sit have to be vaginal? anal? oral? for how long? Marx will be stroking his beard (amongts other things).

yes definitions are different depending on the culture of the society you live in but some things are constant. its not just consensuality that defines sex. its the level of physical maturity and what society we live in. because we live in the society we live in its also the whole bunch of relationships that exist around a person defined as a child having sex with an adult. and obviously that has conseqences for everybody concerned. i don't really care about the dissapearing up your own arse intellectual arguments, mainly cause i don't know the big words.

Quote:
I mean, I can remember as a kid my mothers cats sitting on my lap, and my dick going hard. What does this make me?

probably normal.

Quote:
i don't think we have to look at the most extreme examples of broken people to start having some of those conversations...

no but thats what tends to happen maybe cause of the format in which these conversations take place. real conversations allow the interplay of more subtlety. and yeah, lets keep trying to get away quickly from pure, innocent, guilty or damned. i fucking hate it. life, responsibility, sexuality and everything is way more complicated.

Nikos
Offline
Joined: 30-09-05
Oct 11 2005 18:15

Whats best for the community as a whole has to be the most important factor when deciding what to do with these people, but at the same time, whats best for the rapist (or murderer, or any other "anti-social" - soz couldn't think of a more appropiate word) and their family should also be taken into account.

Prisons, 24-hour watch, seperate villages for criminals (Still prisons) and all these ideas are a strain on the community wheras execution is a bit dramatic and not really best for the executed's family (Theres also the chance that he/she might not actually be guilty of course). I think that the best solution is either public decision making on the criminals fate by majority vote or a jury selected by lot. Perhaps giving the defendant the option of suggesting an alternative fate/punishment/rehabilitation-method/whatever is also a good idea, to be decided by the local community, again, through majority vote.

A couple of questions:

How do we decide at what age a kid is mature enough to have sex?

How do we decide if kids are alowed to have sex with kids their own age or not?

Ted Heath's Ghost
Offline
Joined: 7-10-05
Oct 11 2005 20:10
Quote:
How do we decide at what age a kid is mature enough to have sex?

How do we decide if kids are alowed to have sex with kids their own age or not?

What right do "we", whoever that is, have to decide anyway?

In my mind, a kid is mature enough to have sex when it gets to the age when it doesn't think sex is a completely alien and disgusting idea - in other words a child is mature enough to have sex when it wants to have sex. In some kids that might be 9 or 10 (or younger), in some it might be later in puberty, and many adults haven't even reached that stage yet - many never will. It's all relative.

The way we should look at sex is a) all mutually consentual sex is purely the business of those involved, and b) all non-mutually consentual sex is wrong. If a person forces or coerces someone - be they 4, or 104 - into sex, then they're obviously an authoritarian and should be dealt with according to the threat they pose. A first time offender would probably be better of recieving support and counselling than being dehumanised further by prison, for instance, whereas someone who shows no signs of stopping would require more severe action. On the other hand, we shouldn't patronise groups and decide what is and isn't acceptable on their behalf. If a child is mature enough to consent to sex, then that's the child's business - and then, what is a "child", anyway? When does it stop?

It's worth bearing in mind also that childhood is a very fluid concept. In some places or times it would end at 21, or 18, or 16, or 15, or whatever. Is it more acceptable for a 16 year old girl to have sex than a 15 year old? Or, should a 12 year old in a long term relationship be "allowed" to have sex, whereas a 15 year old not in one not be "allowed"? Is an 8 year old that started puberty (it happens, in my old town a girl started when she was about 6) having sex more acceptable than a 16 year old who started puberty late?

Also, people shouldn't fall into the trap of assuming that certain groups are the passive recievers of sex, and other groups the people who initiate it. This leads to mentalities such as it being okay for a 14 year old male to have sex with a 30 year old woman, but it being peadophilic for a 14 year old female to have sex with a 30 year old man. So sexist and ageist in one!

For the record, i'm no expert on pre-pubescent sex drives, but I think I can safely say that there is absolutely no universality about it. You'd probably find a trend where the younger you get, the more of an aversion the child has to sex, but other than that there's no correlation whatsoever. I think this is reflected in the numbers of kids having sex, too - the younger they get, the more often this sex is the result of rape/coercion, whereas the older they get the more often this is mutually consentual sex.

Ironically, it's probably the same patronising over-protectiveness of kids that's so rampant that leads to the mentality of the kind of people who rape them, anyway. We shouldn't treat children like toys to protect or steal - its the same problem as with patriachy, essentially. And look at how rampant rape and femicide is, because of that very same mentality.

I could ramble on for hours, clearly.

Nick Durie
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 12 2005 10:57
Quote:
That does sound cool. Will Freedom publish it?

IMO, police activities should be mingled as much with other roles to avoid creating any kind of police body that has an interest in controlling other people -- even if 'for their own good'.

It may even be a good idea to get almost everyone to do it, as part of a public service work quota or something like that. I like the idea of everyone being compelled to do certain onerous civic tasks, provided there is not good cause to debar a person (e.g. in this case communards reckon that the person would enjoy it too much etc.).

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 12 2005 11:06
Nick Durie wrote:
It may even be a good idea to get almost everyone to do it, as part of a public service work quota or something like that. I like the idea of everyone being compelled to do certain onerous civic tasks.

Indeed. From my own experience of anything close to policing work -- running a social club bar and dealing wtih drunks, 'policing' the space, and controlling people's behavious, eurgh -- it's pretty shitty work and definitely 'onerous'. THe best thing is when a place is mostly self-policig, of course, and I've seen that happen, when the staff are mostly irrelevant, because of the high level of empowerment of the centre's users. 8) Hopefully a similar situation would develop with regard to community self-policing in general.

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Oct 12 2005 11:45
Ted Heath's Ghost wrote:
In my mind, a kid is mature enough to have sex when it gets to the age when it doesn't think sex is a completely alien and disgusting idea - in other words a child is mature enough to have sex when it wants to have sex.

The problem with this is that an adult may well be able to (at least temporarily) convince a kid that it wants to have sex.

Obviously the question of age of consent, and more generally how you decide when someone's mature enough to be considered an adult, is a very tricky one (and not one that I could even begin to answer). But it's one that will have to be addressed at some point - it'll never be possible for adults and children to interact as equals in every sense.

Ted Heath's Ghost
Offline
Joined: 7-10-05
Oct 12 2005 13:46
Garner wrote:

The problem with this is that an adult may well be able to (at least temporarily) convince a kid that it wants to have sex.

Yeah, but is it not possible for adults to trick each other into having sex? Lots of sex relies on some sort of trickery or convincing beforehand, that people later regret. Should we prevent adults from having sex simply because they're prone to making mistakes or are very suggestable?

Quote:

Obviously the question of age of consent, and more generally how you decide when someone's mature enough to be considered an adult, is a very tricky one (and not one that I could even begin to answer).

That's my point, there shouldn't be an age of consent, or an age when sex is suddenly allowed or acceptable. The age of consent is simply when an individual decides to start having sex, in my mind (emphasis on "decides"). Parents, famillies, friends or wider communities have little to no control over it now, and they never will do, and nor should they.

Quote:
But it's one that will have to be addressed at some point - it'll never be possible for adults and children to interact as equals in every sense.

No-one will adress it though, because people are too scared to discuss it. Anyone see the Brasseye special on peadophillia? Think about when Simon Pegg was put in the stocks...

As for adults and children interacting as equals, then that's true. But then adults and adults aren't equals, either. We're looking for equal oppurtunities, not equal abilities, since the latter is simply impossible, and this should be the way we look at children. If you give children room to grow and develop on their own, you'd probably be surprised by what they can accomplish, but like all of us they'd still come back for protection and advice from family and their peers.

I mean, we're not talking about 7 year olds squatting, getting stoned at orgies then going home to discuss Sartre.

Ted Heath's Ghost
Offline
Joined: 7-10-05
Oct 12 2005 17:35
revol68 wrote:
yeah all thats well and good but surely society in general has the right to say, "stop fucking kids, you nonce bastard".

a society that can't be bothered to think about things, sure.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 12 2005 18:14

Hi

In a desperate attempt to make every thread about veganism. If it's OK to eat lamb, how come it's wrong to "have sex" with one?

"Love"

LR

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Oct 13 2005 11:31
Ted Heath's Ghost wrote:
No-one will adress it though, because people are too scared to discuss it.

Then I guess they'll just keep saying "stop fucking kids, you nonce bastard".

Which might not be all that far from the conclusion they'd come to if they did discuss it.

Ted Heath's Ghost
Offline
Joined: 7-10-05
Oct 13 2005 12:55

Then you'd probably end up with a lot of kids who have a difficult time understanding sex and sexuality because they were constantly "protected" (i.e. controlled) by adults who think they know best.

And kids who grow up repressing their sexuality or with difficult sexual experiences often become "nonces" as you've so colourfully put it, a word that incidentally most likely derives from homophobic slang. So you'd just be pissing in the wind.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Oct 13 2005 12:59
Ted Heath's Ghost wrote:
Then you'd probably end up with a lot of kids who have a difficult time understanding sex and sexuality because they were constantly "protected" (i.e. controlled) by adults who think they know best.

And kids who grow up repressing their sexuality or with difficult sexual experiences often become "nonces" as you've so colourfully put it, a word that incidentally most likely derives from homophobic slang. So you'd just be pissing in the wind.

Nonce = Not On Normal Communal Exercise. Prison slang.

As for the rest of your post,

Oh sod it, I give up.

Ted Heath's Ghost
Offline
Joined: 7-10-05
Oct 13 2005 13:09
the button wrote:

Nonce = Not On Normal Communal Exercise. Prison slang.

That's a backronym. It's most likely derived from nancy.

Quote:
Oh sod it, I give up.

It's not that hard - a simple case of seperating examples of rape from things that aren't rape. No-one has any right interfering in consentual sex.

Ted Heath's Ghost
Offline
Joined: 7-10-05
Oct 13 2005 13:44
revol68 wrote:
Next thing we heard was that she was back at school on the Monday and was just 14! Talk about shitting a brick. Now the girl was very sexually experianced with boys and girls and i don't think it would have been taking advantage, but still it there is no way any of us would have felt okay having sex with her. So we all solemly swore to just groom her until she hit atleast 16 :wink:

Yeah, fine - that's my point. You might not want to, but someone else might not feel it's a problem. It's not up to us to call them names or try and stop it - its up to the people involved.

It's pretty common to find 12-13 year olds going out or sleeping with people older than 18 - I've known people that age, or a little older, who only considered sleeping with people over 30 to be unacceptable or weird. It's the result of complex social relationships (also the fact that 12 year old boys repulse girls, with good reason) but ultimately, it's their decision, even if it's a huuuuuuuuge mistake in the end.

gentle revolutionary
Offline
Joined: 31-10-04
Oct 13 2005 13:46

I largely agree with Ted Heath's Ghost. I think Netherlands had a more reasonable solution (which can't eradicate abuse as this isn't a merely legal issue) a few years back before they changed the age of consent to 17 (quite unrealistic, made under heavy US pressure and after the horrible Dutroux case for instance) - age of consent 12 with the possibility of prosecution for "consensual relations" in case the minor or the parents reported abuse, or sth like that.