I've been reading the excellent books by Will and Ariel Durant called The Story of Civilization; I am on the first book right now. On page 29 Durant is writing about primitive societies and the beginning of government and legal codes. Durant says: "Primitive punishments are cruel, because primitive society feels insecure; as social organization becomes more stable, punishments become less severe."
This sentence got me thinking about the cruel punishments dished out by our "justice" system with the horrible institution of prison; it's rapes, murders, beatings by the ones who are supposed to be there to protect; the viruses, and poor medical care, and the solitary confinement for weeks on end in some cases, and other forms of torture that are common place in some prisons.
Assuming Durant is correct, that more civilized societies' punishments are less severe, does that mean that anarchists are the pinnacle of civility because anarchists do not see punishment as the ideal way to deal with those who disobey the moral laws of society, and instead opt for rehabilitation?
I've sometimes wondered why so many people think that those who harm others should receive immense punishments, like the immoral prison system, or even death in some cases. With the many studies which show that prison is not an effective tool for rehabilitation and costs billions a year for a system that doesn't help anything, and often times makes things worse, I've wondered what drives people to wish this horrible system upon others and want to continue its use.
There are many who would opt for the current system to be deconstructed, though there are many who seem to love the thought of severe punishments. Is this a primitive part of their nature coming out, or is there something about modern societies (with the lack of decent victim compensation) that causes this? I don't have a definitive answer (though I think it's the latter), and I doubt anyone else does either, but this begs the question. What is it about anarchists that cause them to be less brutal and more kind hearted than so many others? And what does this say about those who embrace the government and their grotesque institutions?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
3 comments:
Thank you for considering to leave a comment. I highly value both positive and negative feedback but please abide by my comment policy at all times. If this is not done your comment may end up getting deleted. If you wish to leave a comment I usually respond to all of them, so if you'd like to begin a discussion please check back to see if I've responded.
If you'd like to subscribe to the comments you can find the links to do so along the right side of my blog.
Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was bored, so I found your opposite- Mike WOng, alias Darth Wong. He is an atheist, a rationalist... and a statist.
ReplyDeletehttp://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=126886&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25
"Actually, I would say that the American cultural mythology of populism and "rugged individualism" is the root of the problem. Americans just loooove to pretend that they don't need society, and that society shouldn't tell them what to do, and that society is just an obstruction which gets in the way of the individual, and that "common sense" will get people through the day, etc. But I have long maintained that while it's unpopular to say it, it is absolutely true that the people don't know what's best for them, and they need a paternalistic government run by well-educated elites in order to keep them from hurting themselves.
Of course, that message would go over like a lead balloon in the US, but their inability to face reality is not my problem. The facts are in, and they support my longstanding position. "
Hey, I disagree with you over anarchism, but politics isn't as readily amendable to logical proofs as theology. So, I dump you on people who do. As compensation they have stuff like this.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=113554
If you decide to take a look at it, a word of advice- Dutchess isn't serious. Probably.
Thanks for the comment...
ReplyDeleteAs you can probably guess I disagree with that guy (I would consider him a windbag actually) vehemently.
He says that people need someone to look out for their best interests because people don't know what those are??? Please, give me a break. If someone doesn't know what their best interests are then I would maintain that neither does the government. It's because of the so wonderful "leadership" of the government that the economy is as bad as it is; that we're in a war we shouldn't be in, and the government is restricting our freedoms and spying on us, and the evil arms of the state (pigs) are murdering people and injuring innocent people...yeah we need the government like a guy with HIV needs to catch a cold.
People will do what they need to do, and if they don't, who cares? It's not my business, not yours, and not that windbag's.
People have survived for centuries without government so why couldn't we do it now? Granted the population is larger and there would be some problems (not that solutions cannot be found) but ultimately people would finally be free and the free market (Adam Smith's invisible hand concept) would help produce what the human species needed. I've gone over in other posts what could replace the government so I won't go over it here, but sorry, I'd say that the facts are in, and it's shocking that the human race is still alive with government and religion still at the helm of our lives.
As far as "politics isn't as readily amendable to logical proofs as theology" I would disagree. Now, all us atheists know that the theists are full of it and they haven't got a leg to stand on, so it's true in that regard, but the thing about statism is that, unlike theology, anarchist do not have to rely on faith because there are alternatives to the state that have been worked out for many years.
With politics you can look at facts and not rely on faith and it's possible to test your ideas directly with experimentation. And for the record, there have been successful anarchist societies - even up to present day.
Well, the thread was about the fact that people were going into debt because... they didn't follow "read before signing" and "income needs to exceed expenses".
ReplyDeleteAs it is, the government tends to get people with more expertise that average- a consequence of devision of labor.
The current government sucks in large part due to the fact its ideology is to take apart the government- the conservative movement wants to rack up such a large debt that the government gets taken apart and all that is left is the military.
As you can see, that hasn't worked so well.
The successful anarchist societies were/are cocconed in statist societies. It is like saying there were successful pacifist societies- yeah, but they were protected by others armies or by geography.