Col. Trautman wrote:
What will anarchists do with violent criminals?
What do governments do with violent criminals? The fact this remains an open question in terms of what they should do does not mean everyone who believes in government should declare what should be done with them and that's that - that's what people who believe in government do.
Anarchists would tend to think there would be less violent crime without government - there's no invading people so all that violent crime is gone. Much violent crime is acquisitive in nature - it's reasonable to assume that a society predicated on cooperation and mutual aid would negate the need for people to acquire material good by force in the same this occurs in a society predicated on the competitive pursuit of wealth and status.
Additionally, it's known that the more unequal a society, the more social problems there are. A society where people are not under pressure to either Win! Win! Win! or battle just to keep a roof over their heads while the boss class swan around buying their fifth home would, I think it's reasonable to say, mean less stressed out, psychologically damaged people with nothing more to look forward to than a pint and a fight.
Nevertheless, violent individuals would still exist. There would presumably be a need to isolate some people for the safety of others.
Oh so there's a police force then?. No., anarchists don't believe that putting a tit on your head gives you super powers mere mortals cannot posses. Anarchists recognise the dangers inherent of giving a specific class of people the sole authority to use force, recognises the historical function of the police is primarily to safeguard the status quo and are generally aware an organised police force is a comparatively modern invention. Anarchists would veer towards community action - nobody, however violent, can fuck with everyone.
We can assume that social rules would evolve and there would be customary protocols - anarchists reject government, but all societies have rules, contrary to the general perception of anarchy=disorganised chaos. Indeed, anarchism would give people greater responsibility ads all decision making would not be relegated to authority figures. Exactly how people would deal with violent people is as hypothetical as asking if anarchists will go to the fake moon.
Though myself I would favour incarceration only for other people's safety and a bleeding heart rehabilitation approach - having worked with violent criminals myself, I know that a lot of them are fucked up people with a big can of worms inside their head society encourages them to keep packed away. Prisons also breed institutionalisation and a Darwinian survival of the fittest that means the more of a nutter you are, the less of a challenge prison tends to be.
What is interesting about this sort of stuff is the way people routinely say
what would you do about... as if all people should have a complete blueprint for all society's political, social and economic questions. I think a lot of people sit there imagining society would be great if only everything was how they'd like it to be. With anarchism, you have to recognise that it is about your personal freedom and responsibility in balance with that of others. What happens depends on what everyone decides, not what you imagine must happen.
