Anarchism -
http://www.reference.com/browse/anarchism
[Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. Central to anarchist thought is the belief that society is natural and that people are good but are corrupted by artificial institutions. Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders human development. Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations.
In general, it would seem that "anarchism" is another way of saying that "in chaos, there is order", and that the path to "order" is in the allowance of a chaotic social structure to reorder itself after being allowed to run rampant and sanctioning the power of the fittest or the mob to control themselves under adverse circumstances.
Vlad wrote:
I'm not going to accept that genetics stuff as an explanation for crime. It's based on the "naive realism" that underpins statism. It's also an irresponsible denial of ownership of our actions. [. . .] Crime is the result of social dynamic and conditioning.
I once had an opportunity to speak with a convicted pedophile, who admitted to his crime and also had admitted that he could not control himself, and that if allowed to be in contact with children, would most definitely abuse any child which he came in contact with. Having made this admission, he also was willing to undergo any treatment or attempt to alter this urge in order to keep from having these driving forces that pushes him forward. There were no "social dynamic" or "conditioning" which brought this person to commit these crimes, and by his admission was something which was deep seated in his moral makeup, even though he took "ownership of" his "actions."
How would an anarchistic social structure handle this person in their social structure?
Vlad wrote:People are seeking thrills and have no empathy or compassion because of the way they have been conditioned in the state structure.
How would an anarchistic society instill "empathy or compassion" in people who are "seeking thrills"; please feel free to use your own words or ideas, instead of sighting someone else's thoughts?
Vlad wrote:No one is lazy, that's a projective label; it's use actually says something about the fixed and judgmental world view of the one doing the labeling. Instead let's say some people have a need for ease or peace, they've probably become alienated from the community in statism and can't find any emotional reward in contributing to the well being of others, or even themselves.
So, you are saying that those individuals who are labeled as "lazy" only "have a need for ease or peace," and "can't find any emotional reward in contributing to the well being of others, or even themselves." So, how does an anarchistic society take care of these people, or for that matter, would they be allowed to starve, or allow any of their children to do likewise? And, if they are put on a pedestal, and shown "empathy" and "compassion" what would keep others from following in their footsteps?
Vlad wrote:"[T]he world owes them" is an interpretation, like projective labeling, it is not phenomenological and objective but rather a form of psychological violence. [. . .]
I'm assuming that you are saying that "[T]he world owes them", the "lazy" people, because they are subjected to "psychological violence" to having been labeled as "lazy"?
Vlad wrote:A tiny minority of rare individuals such as severely autistic or brain damaged people may need compassionate support, surveillance, or even rest communities.
"A tiny minority", how do you come to this conclusion, do you have any statistical evidence, where how many, out of 100 people born today, can be considered as born without some abnormality or defect? And who, would be qualified to supply this "compassionate support", if there was not state structure to supply this "surveillance, or even rest communities"?
Vlad wrote:A larger group of people have forgotten who they really are and may do something they'll later feel remorse about; we would ordinarily imprison these people.
How large is or are these groups of people you are referring to, and when you use the term "we would ordinarily imprison these people", are you also including yourself as part of the "we"?
Vlad wrote:Given the amount of resources devoted to the failed law and order approach, it would be much more effective and humane to use a system like probation with monitoring, friendship, mind-training, and health. [. . .]
And who would provide this "much more effective and humane" "system", as you refer too, if an anarchistic non-state form of government were in place? How would this "system" work and be paid for?