Originally posted by rwingett I don't think we need a hierarchical system to have order and justice. Of course mankind will likely never live in tranquility (prosperity, perhaps, but tranquility is a stretch). But preventing someone from commiting murder does not require a hierarchy. Anarchism is not the freedom to do whatever you want, free from any constraints.
I'll admit anarchism is rather a new subject to me, but how would you maintain justice without a hierarchical system to impose it? I presume a judge would have authority (within the confines of the law) over the sentenced convict.
Originally posted by Halitose I'll admit anarchism is rather a new subject to me, but how would you maintain justice without a hierarchical system to impose it? I presume a judge would have authority (within the confines of the law) over the sentenced convict.
Why would you presume such a thing? Why not a vote of the whole community (ala "American Idol"😉?
Originally posted by no1marauder Why would you presume such a thing? Why not a vote of the whole community (ala "American Idol"😉?
I'm just presuming on my limited view of justice. A democratic justice system? So if a person is popular, there is no way he/she is going to be punished for their wrongs?
Originally posted by Halitose I'm just presuming on my limited view of justice. A democratic justice system? So if a person is popular, there is no way he/she is going to be punished for their wrongs?
Thanks for the "strawman". Your original question was about sentencing, now you change it to conviction. Which one are you referring to? You are aware in the US that almost all persons are convicted by juries, not judges, aren't you?
Originally posted by Halitose And if a KKK community voted that there was nothing wrong with lynching black folk? Exquisite justice, yes?
Another "strawman". The issue of whether Fundamental rights are recognized is seperate and distinct from the existence of a hierarchial government. Virtually all governments have been hierarchial in history and the vast majority have ignored the fundamental rights of the people. I would say that the existence of an upper class which rules over everybody else is more likely to be violative of fundamental rights than a system like a democratic anarchistic one.
Originally posted by no1marauder Thanks for the "strawman". Your original question was about sentencing, now you change it to conviction. Which one are you referring to? You are aware in the US that almost all persons are convicted by juries, not judges, aren't you?
I guess both. While I wouldn't dare to lecture you on the American judicial system, to my frugal knowledge the judge does the sentencing. In any case, the jury/judge therefore forms a proxy authority, is it not? Also, the USA and Britain are some of the few countries (to my knowledge) that have a trial by jury.
Originally posted by no1marauder Another "strawman". The issue of whether Fundamental rights are recognized is seperate and distinct from the existence of a hierarchial government. Virtually all governments have been hierarchial in history and the vast majority have ignored the fundamental rights of the people. I would say that the existence of an upper class which rules over everybod ...[text shortened]... re likely to be violative of fundamental rights than a system like a democratic anarchistic one.
The issue of whether Fundamental rights are recognized is separate and distinct from the existence of a hierarchical government.
Don't you still need a "authoritative body" to recognise and impose the said Fundamental rights?
I would say that the existence of an upper class which rules over everybody else is more likely to be violative of fundamental rights than a system like a democratic anarchistic one.
Isn't that exactly why you need a "class-independent" judicial/legislative/executive body?
Originally posted by Halitose [b/]The issue of whether Fundamental rights are recognized is separate and distinct from the existence of a hierarchical government.
Don't you still need a "authoritative body" to recognise and impose the said Fundamental rights?
I would say that the existence of an upper class which rules over everybody else is more likely to be violative o ...[text shortened]...
Isn't that exactly why you need a "class-independent" judicial/legislative/executive body?
You're confusing a hierarchical system i.e. one with graded ranks of authority with a system with a division of labor. You're also confused about the nature of authority in a democratical governmental system. I've been over this many times, but it seems that people like you can't grasp some very basic concepts. But one more time:
In a democratic society, those exercising authority are doing so in the people's stead only; they are delegated agents. So if the people wanted to exercise that authority directly it would not change the nature of the system in theory. The people collectively have the true authority, not their agents.
Originally posted by no1marauder You're confusing a hierarchical system i.e. one with graded ranks of authority with a system with a division of labor. You're also confused about the nature of authority in a democratical governmental system. I've been over this many times, but it seems that people like you can't grasp some very basic concepts. But one more time:
In a demo ...[text shortened]... ture of the system in theory. The people collectively have the true authority, not their agents.
You are too kind, No1 - by actually bothering to reiterate. 😀
So let me get this straight: Judges are appointed by governments; governments appointed (in a democratic scenario) by the people; ergo, judges are appointed by the people. So why not remove judges altogether and let the people do the judging for themselves?
This sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare - to say the least.
Also, would the parties voting on the judgment have to adhere to some fundamental law - especially since there would no longer be an authoritative body to appeal to? If so, who would enforce it? 😕
Originally posted by Halitose You are too kind, No1 - by actually bothering to reiterate. 😀
So let me get this straight: Judges are appointed by governments; governments appointed (in a democratic scenario) by the people; ergo, judges are appointed by the people. So why not remove judges altogether and let the people do the judging for themselves?
This sounds like a bureaucratic ...[text shortened]... nce there would no longer be an authoritative body to appeal to? If so, who would enforce it? 😕
Originally posted by Halitose Wasn't that David C's self proclaimed title at a time?
No, sir, your memory has failed you. The title to which I believe you refer was "Caesar's Messiah". More on this at a later time.
I'll have to go ahead and agree with RDub on this. We are beyond "messiahs" as such...this is the Age of Communication, Technology and Information. It only remains to be seen what paradigm shift occurs on the dawn of the Age of Aquarius. Christianity proclaims Jesus will return to rule, the Mayan calendar marks the end of the Fifth Sun. We could be in for a party.
Originally posted by Halitose And if a KKK community voted that there was nothing wrong with lynching black folk? Exquisite justice, yes?
You've forgotten that people would have the requisite maturity to govern themselves, quality manifestly lacking amongst the KKK (and Australian cricket fans too, apparently).
You could do worse than read Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed, a science fiction novel pitting an anarchist world against a capitalist one.
Originally posted by David C No, sir, your memory has failed you. The title to which I believe you refer was "Caesar's Messiah". More on this at a later time.
I'll have to go ahead and agree with RDub on this. We are beyond "messiahs" as such...this is the Age of Communication, Technology and Information. It only remains to be seen what paradigm shift occurs on the dawn of the ...[text shortened]... l return to rule, the Mayan calendar marks the end of the Fifth Sun. We could be in for a party.
The New New Messiah
20 Dec '05 19:39
Back to Top