Thesh wrote:Pfhorrest wrote:Although, to Thesh et al, my fellow libertarian socialists: you do still want there to be someone who will stand up to some asshole who keeps, say, stealing the toothbrushes of people he doesn't like, and refuses to be reasoned with, and tries to fight anyone who tries to stop him, don't you? Obviously you want to prevent that from happening first if you can, and to peacefully dissuade him from further assholery if not, but if he really presses it and won't stop, eventually someone should make him, right? Not by just shooting him off the bat, of course, but some force may eventually be warranted?
In a society built around positive reciprocity and social ownership, status seeking becomes about not what you can aquire, but how much you can benefit those around you, which gets people into positive habits. It usually takes mental effort to deviate from norms and people imitate the people around them, so reducing violence as a response reduces capacity for violence. Most antisocial behaviors can be corrected by withdrawal of positive reciprocity or mediation - restorative justice puts the victim and offender together to come to a mutually agreeable resolution. If mediation doesn't work, take their shit or break something of theirs. If things are really bad, maybe there is a mental health issue; some people might need medication, therapy, or a care person. Worst case scenario, you can publicly shame or ostracize them.
I only support violence in the most extreme circumstances.
That all sounds like it falls under the pervue of "prevent" or "peacefully dissuade", which I agree are the right first steps, but I'm asking about if those steps fail.
In general, when you talk about your ideal society, it seems to always be describing a world where that kind of society has been dominant for a long time and most people have been raised with its ideals normalized, and you seem to be describing how such an established society would deal with individuals beginning to stray from its peaceful ways. And for what that's worth I don't have a lot of disagreement with anything you say in that respect. But what's a more interesting and pressing question to me, and I expect a lot of other people, is what happens at the interface of that kind of society and what we have today.
Imagine you have somehow established somewhere a small and young enclave of people living that way, but they're surrounded by what we have today, in all of its varieties as found around the world. When the broken people who have been raised in our broken systems take their broken behavior into your better society, how does that society respond? That's the kind of question people are asking, so telling them how those problems wouldn't arise in a better society doesn't help, because we want to know what happens when the problems from today's society spill over the non-borders of the better one.