It is interesting to me how so many of my fellow citizens still espouse how America is The Land of the Free. So long as we criminalize non-violent behavior, we are not free. Drug use is not a...
It is interesting to me how so many of my fellow citizens still espouse how America is The Land of the Free.
So long as we criminalize non-violent behavior, we are not free.
Drug use is not a criminal problem, it is a social/medical problem.
Homelessness is not a crime. Trespassing is not a crime (provided you're not intruding in someone's home, harassing them, or destroying their personal belongings). Loitering is not a crime.
Even something as socially unsupported as pu lic nudity should not be criminalized.
Violence is crime. Otherwise is merely an infringement of freedom.
This is a bit of an aside, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion here. I certainly agree that far too much is criminalized in the US, and that often social issues are masked as criminal...
This is a bit of an aside, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion here. I certainly agree that far too much is criminalized in the US, and that often social issues are masked as criminal issues so that we don't have to honestly think about them.
But saying that only violence is a crime? I don't think I can agree. What about identity theft, which can seriously ruin someone's finances? What about scams that prey on the elderly or gullible? There are loads of examples I can think of that aren't explicitly violent. At least, using standard definitions of violence. I can understand that we might want to define 'violence' as that which is worth criminalizing (or some other definition), and that perhaps identity theft could be considered violent in that sense. Such a definition might be useful, but I do think its worthwhile to at least state the definition in discussions on topics like this.
Even something like trespassing somewhere other than a person's home I think can be criminal. If I own a business, and if my livelihood depended on that business, I don't think it would be unreasonable to want some guarantees that I can control who has access to that business. It's not very different than a home in that regard, in my opinion. Not that all trespassing should be criminal - most can certainly be properly addressed as a civil offense. But my main point remains that I believe "violence = crime" is too restrictive to really properly ensure "maximum" freedom.
As a post-script, I'd note that I do agree with most of what you point out regarding drugs, homelessness, loitering, etc.
I guess it depends on your definition of violence. Most people only think of violence in terms of physical harm. My definition would roughly be: Violence is an activity that harm another person....
I guess it depends on your definition of violence. Most people only think of violence in terms of physical harm. My definition would roughly be:
Violence is an activity that harm another person. This includes emotional abuse, depriving of societal (and life) essentials, and polluting the commons (the concept of land ownership is immoral IMO).
What about identity theft, which can seriously ruin someone's finances?
I would argue that impersonation is a form of violence, as you are generally causing harm to the person impersonated.
What about scams that prey on the elderly or gullible?
Scams are theft of personal possessions, and is thus violent.
If I own a business, and if my livelihood depended on that business, I don't think it would be unreasonable to want some guarantees that I can control who has access to that business.
Nope. That's the kind of reasoning that justified 'Whites only' and 'no service to homosexuals.' If they're not being violent, you can still kick them out if you want. Police could still come to assist with removal. But that's different from being criminalized.
It's not very different than a home in that regard, in my opinion.
A home is a personal place, where only invited people are welcome. A business is a public space that is open to all.
I think it's because we allow for criminalization of non-violent activity that law needs to be so complicated. By structuring within a framework of preventing harm, virtually everyone would be able to comprehend any necessary law. The beginning of any law should be a justification for how the criminal act is violent.
You don't need complex laws, you need simple laws with stringent and consistent enforcement.
Some other things that are violence in my mind:
Reckless driving (DUI, not keeping with pace of traffic, changing lanes without signaling, etc)
Denying anybody access to food/water/shelter
Deceptive advertising
And some other things that are not:
Blocking non-emergency traffic
Being violent against people being violent (within reasonable orders of magnitude)
Let me guess, you're a libertarian, right? You could just use the word 'harm', which actually means what you're using the word 'violence' to mean. I'm not a descriptivist by any means but...
Let me guess, you're a libertarian, right?
You could just use the word 'harm', which actually means what you're using the word 'violence' to mean. I'm not a descriptivist by any means but sometimes the dictionary is a good idea if you want other people to understand what you're saying. OED does have a sense of 'violence' which sort of fits how you're using it but it doesn't quite match and that sense is archaic at best, if not outright obsolete. I know the use of 'violence' is a political choice but it does make you sound a bit strange.
fwiw I personally think that society (and therefore law) should be structured around maximising happiness and well-being, not freedom. I suspect the two goals line up quite often but not always.
I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say but my guess was predicated on the observation that lolbertarians, especially the American variety, tend to use the word 'violence' to describe...
I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say but my guess was predicated on the observation that lolbertarians, especially the American variety, tend to use the word 'violence' to describe anything they don't like. Taxes? Violence. Parking fine? Violence. Laws? Violence.
Thanks @Loire for the resoundng endorsement. ;) American Libertarians (called right-libertarians by the lefties) do believe in the same general 'individual liberty' concepts that anarchists do....
American Libertarians (called right-libertarians by the lefties) do believe in the same general 'individual liberty' concepts that anarchists do. But, what I would argue is the key differentiator, is that the right-libertarians believe this freedom extends to property rights (defined not as belongings, but as a wealth-generating mechanism) and often goes hand-in-hand with enforcing those property rights with violence.
So yea, occasionally anarchists and libertarians agree on social issues and can be temporary allies. But that's an exception more than a rule.
Here's a good introduction I want to highlight this paragraph (emphasis mine): Authority, as I would use it, could be defined as 'any power structure that is enforced via violence.' That is not to...
I want to highlight this paragraph (emphasis mine):
The simplest definition of anarchy is to oppose all forms of authority, to increase the freedoms of the individual and promote the wellbeing of communities. Is violence not just a brutal, oppressive expression of authority against a fellow human being? Your actions are directly causing harm and limiting another’s freedoms. Taking someone’s life is the ultimate harm, but in all circumstances, it is one person imposing their will and their power onto another.
Authority, as I would use it, could be defined as 'any power structure that is enforced via violence.'
That is not to say that there will not be authoritative figures in an anarchist society, but that those authorities are in that position because of trust in and from their community, not because they're going to call their thugs to imprison or kill you.
I think the accepted term for this that most people will understand is "victimless" behavior. Using an uncommon definition of violence is confusing your message, and I don't think there's any benefit.
I think the accepted term for this that most people will understand is "victimless" behavior. Using an uncommon definition of violence is confusing your message, and I don't think there's any benefit.
For people that live in other countries: what are the public-drinking laws like in your country? It's easy for me to just look up whether it's legal or not in various countries, but I'm more...
For people that live in other countries: what are the public-drinking laws like in your country?
I think our laws here in Canada are pretty similar to the American ones. I think there are a few small exceptions, but you generally can't drink in public at all, can't have an open alcoholic drink in a vehicle, etc.
It doesn't add much, but since it's kind of topical: I've always liked this little speech from The Wire about the value of a paper bag for letting people drink in public and giving police a reasonable excuse to ignore it.
I'm in the UK and as far as i know its legal to drink nearly everywhere. There are some areas with signs up saying you aren't allowed to drink there but i don't think they are enforced much...
I'm in the UK and as far as i know its legal to drink nearly everywhere. There are some areas with signs up saying you aren't allowed to drink there but i don't think they are enforced much judging by the amount of drinking i see under them.
I think public drinking causes a lot of problems, its far from the idealistic "gumbo and a beer" portrayed in the article. Working men go to pubs in the UK or working men's or social clubs (labour/conservative/catholic/etc clubs) or they drink at home as people in the UK love their gardens/yards. The people i generally see public drinking are those who cause too many problems in pubs and have been banned or those drinking so much that going to pub is too expensive. They generally get together in groups in the morning, drink all day and make whatever area they are in a mess (glass, cans, food wrappers etc), piss on nearby houses, between petty fights/arguments and naps they harass passersby. They turn areas that would be nice to spend your lunch hour to an area people avoid.
I wont pretend to be unbiased though, i live in the towncentre in one of the poorer areas of the England and very close to where groups of public drinkers congregate. Maybe in nicer areas it is better but in my experience, in summer, its not too far from the famous gin craze picture.
Also UK, with a much more positive view here. At its best, meeting friends for a few beers, some snacks, maybe a bottle of Prosecco in the park can be absolutely idyllic. Everyone near here lives...
Also UK, with a much more positive view here. At its best, meeting friends for a few beers, some snacks, maybe a bottle of Prosecco in the park can be absolutely idyllic.
Everyone near here lives in flats, gardens are rare, and even relatively well paid young professionals are often sharing with a few other people. A normal pint in the pub is over £5, and if they have outside space it's likely to be rammed beyond belief on a pleasant summer day (or at least would have been pre-social-distancing). Sitting in the shade of a willow tree, next to a lake, in the cool breeze, sharing a decent bottle of chilled white wine that cost barely more than a single beer would have done suddenly becomes incredibly appealing!
All that said, this is still the UK. We have an unquestionably unhealthy relationship with alcohol, and plenty of people do take it too far. I think that's a cultural and social problem that absolutely should be addressed, but I don't think forcibly moving it behind closed doors would be the right way to do so, and I think that it would be a great shame to lose the simple joy of a picnic in the sunshine with a good round of drinks to go with it.
Germany is pretty much unrestricted in what you can drink and where you can drink. In my hometown people from 14-18 (legal age is 16 for beer and wine) often went to drink at the riverside on...
Germany is pretty much unrestricted in what you can drink and where you can drink.
In my hometown people from 14-18 (legal age is 16 for beer and wine) often went to drink at the riverside on Fridays. You can also see people just walk around the city with a beer in their hand or sit in trains with drinks. You can also drink in a car as long as you're not the driver I guess, I have never heard that it would be forbidden.
For those not familiar, in the US the riverside drinking bit is still in full effect with the rural youngins, and drinking in a vehicle is determined by state, so those two are roughly the same in...
For those not familiar, in the US the riverside drinking bit is still in full effect with the rural youngins, and drinking in a vehicle is determined by state, so those two are roughly the same in my experience. It's weird to imagine folks drinking during a commuting setting though.
There's a certain demographic that can be seen drinking in town squares in the early weekend mornings. That's about the only negative effect of public drinking here. Ohh, and hard to control...
There's a certain demographic that can be seen drinking in town squares in the early weekend mornings. That's about the only negative effect of public drinking here. Ohh, and hard to control unsanitary contact during corona times, but that's a different topic.
Otherwise, public drinking is generally a phenomenon in the summer for the younger generations. There's a spot near me that gets used that way a lot. Never had any problems.
As far as the law goes in the US, you aren't supposed to drink in most public spaces not designated for an event that would allow it. In reality, however, I've drank at the park, the beach, on a...
As far as the law goes in the US, you aren't supposed to drink in most public spaces not designated for an event that would allow it. In reality, however, I've drank at the park, the beach, on a boat, on the sidewalk, in the roadway, outside of bars and restaurants as well as at events that aren't designated for drinking like fairs and festivals. I also live in a state where marijuana is still illegal for recreational use and have smoked in all of those same places. I can't recall a single time we've ever been questioned about it, let alone ticketed for it. The closest I have seen is when some dumb ass makes a scene, generally fighting, and officers have to tell people to disperse or if it's bad enough arrest them for disorderly conduct.
I could see how living in a larger city and suburban area might be a little bit stricter but I still haven't seen anyone get a public drinking ticket who wasn't being a nuisance for some other reason.
It is interesting to me how so many of my fellow citizens still espouse how America is The Land of the Free.
So long as we criminalize non-violent behavior, we are not free.
Drug use is not a criminal problem, it is a social/medical problem.
Homelessness is not a crime. Trespassing is not a crime (provided you're not intruding in someone's home, harassing them, or destroying their personal belongings). Loitering is not a crime.
Even something as socially unsupported as pu lic nudity should not be criminalized.
Violence is crime. Otherwise is merely an infringement of freedom.
This is a bit of an aside, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion here. I certainly agree that far too much is criminalized in the US, and that often social issues are masked as criminal issues so that we don't have to honestly think about them.
But saying that only violence is a crime? I don't think I can agree. What about identity theft, which can seriously ruin someone's finances? What about scams that prey on the elderly or gullible? There are loads of examples I can think of that aren't explicitly violent. At least, using standard definitions of violence. I can understand that we might want to define 'violence' as that which is worth criminalizing (or some other definition), and that perhaps identity theft could be considered violent in that sense. Such a definition might be useful, but I do think its worthwhile to at least state the definition in discussions on topics like this.
Even something like trespassing somewhere other than a person's home I think can be criminal. If I own a business, and if my livelihood depended on that business, I don't think it would be unreasonable to want some guarantees that I can control who has access to that business. It's not very different than a home in that regard, in my opinion. Not that all trespassing should be criminal - most can certainly be properly addressed as a civil offense. But my main point remains that I believe "violence = crime" is too restrictive to really properly ensure "maximum" freedom.
As a post-script, I'd note that I do agree with most of what you point out regarding drugs, homelessness, loitering, etc.
I guess it depends on your definition of violence. Most people only think of violence in terms of physical harm. My definition would roughly be:
Violence is an activity that harm another person. This includes emotional abuse, depriving of societal (and life) essentials, and polluting the commons (the concept of land ownership is immoral IMO).
I would argue that impersonation is a form of violence, as you are generally causing harm to the person impersonated.
Scams are theft of personal possessions, and is thus violent.
Nope. That's the kind of reasoning that justified 'Whites only' and 'no service to homosexuals.' If they're not being violent, you can still kick them out if you want. Police could still come to assist with removal. But that's different from being criminalized.
A home is a personal place, where only invited people are welcome. A business is a public space that is open to all.
I think it's because we allow for criminalization of non-violent activity that law needs to be so complicated. By structuring within a framework of preventing harm, virtually everyone would be able to comprehend any necessary law. The beginning of any law should be a justification for how the criminal act is violent.
You don't need complex laws, you need simple laws with stringent and consistent enforcement.
Some other things that are violence in my mind:
And some other things that are not:
Let me guess, you're a libertarian, right?
You could just use the word 'harm', which actually means what you're using the word 'violence' to mean. I'm not a descriptivist by any means but sometimes the dictionary is a good idea if you want other people to understand what you're saying. OED does have a sense of 'violence' which sort of fits how you're using it but it doesn't quite match and that sense is archaic at best, if not outright obsolete. I know the use of 'violence' is a political choice but it does make you sound a bit strange.
fwiw I personally think that society (and therefore law) should be structured around maximising happiness and well-being, not freedom. I suspect the two goals line up quite often but not always.
I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say but my guess was predicated on the observation that lolbertarians, especially the American variety, tend to use the word 'violence' to describe anything they don't like. Taxes? Violence. Parking fine? Violence. Laws? Violence.
Thanks @Loire for the resoundng endorsement. ;)
American Libertarians (called right-libertarians by the lefties) do believe in the same general 'individual liberty' concepts that anarchists do. But, what I would argue is the key differentiator, is that the right-libertarians believe this freedom extends to property rights (defined not as belongings, but as a wealth-generating mechanism) and often goes hand-in-hand with enforcing those property rights with violence.
So yea, occasionally anarchists and libertarians agree on social issues and can be temporary allies. But that's an exception more than a rule.
Here's a good introduction
I want to highlight this paragraph (emphasis mine):
Authority, as I would use it, could be defined as 'any power structure that is enforced via violence.'
That is not to say that there will not be authoritative figures in an anarchist society, but that those authorities are in that position because of trust in and from their community, not because they're going to call their thugs to imprison or kill you.
I think the accepted term for this that most people will understand is "victimless" behavior. Using an uncommon definition of violence is confusing your message, and I don't think there's any benefit.
For people that live in other countries: what are the public-drinking laws like in your country?
It's easy for me to just look up whether it's legal or not in various countries, but I'm more interested in how you feel about it. If it's legal, do people actually drink in public often? Is it generally fine, or do you feel like it causes issues?
I think our laws here in Canada are pretty similar to the American ones. I think there are a few small exceptions, but you generally can't drink in public at all, can't have an open alcoholic drink in a vehicle, etc.
It doesn't add much, but since it's kind of topical: I've always liked this little speech from The Wire about the value of a paper bag for letting people drink in public and giving police a reasonable excuse to ignore it.
I'm in the UK and as far as i know its legal to drink nearly everywhere. There are some areas with signs up saying you aren't allowed to drink there but i don't think they are enforced much judging by the amount of drinking i see under them.
I think public drinking causes a lot of problems, its far from the idealistic "gumbo and a beer" portrayed in the article. Working men go to pubs in the UK or working men's or social clubs (labour/conservative/catholic/etc clubs) or they drink at home as people in the UK love their gardens/yards. The people i generally see public drinking are those who cause too many problems in pubs and have been banned or those drinking so much that going to pub is too expensive. They generally get together in groups in the morning, drink all day and make whatever area they are in a mess (glass, cans, food wrappers etc), piss on nearby houses, between petty fights/arguments and naps they harass passersby. They turn areas that would be nice to spend your lunch hour to an area people avoid.
I wont pretend to be unbiased though, i live in the towncentre in one of the poorer areas of the England and very close to where groups of public drinkers congregate. Maybe in nicer areas it is better but in my experience, in summer, its not too far from the famous gin craze picture.
Also UK, with a much more positive view here. At its best, meeting friends for a few beers, some snacks, maybe a bottle of Prosecco in the park can be absolutely idyllic.
Everyone near here lives in flats, gardens are rare, and even relatively well paid young professionals are often sharing with a few other people. A normal pint in the pub is over £5, and if they have outside space it's likely to be rammed beyond belief on a pleasant summer day (or at least would have been pre-social-distancing). Sitting in the shade of a willow tree, next to a lake, in the cool breeze, sharing a decent bottle of chilled white wine that cost barely more than a single beer would have done suddenly becomes incredibly appealing!
All that said, this is still the UK. We have an unquestionably unhealthy relationship with alcohol, and plenty of people do take it too far. I think that's a cultural and social problem that absolutely should be addressed, but I don't think forcibly moving it behind closed doors would be the right way to do so, and I think that it would be a great shame to lose the simple joy of a picnic in the sunshine with a good round of drinks to go with it.
Germany is pretty much unrestricted in what you can drink and where you can drink.
In my hometown people from 14-18 (legal age is 16 for beer and wine) often went to drink at the riverside on Fridays. You can also see people just walk around the city with a beer in their hand or sit in trains with drinks. You can also drink in a car as long as you're not the driver I guess, I have never heard that it would be forbidden.
For those not familiar, in the US the riverside drinking bit is still in full effect with the rural youngins, and drinking in a vehicle is determined by state, so those two are roughly the same in my experience. It's weird to imagine folks drinking during a commuting setting though.
There's a certain demographic that can be seen drinking in town squares in the early weekend mornings. That's about the only negative effect of public drinking here. Ohh, and hard to control unsanitary contact during corona times, but that's a different topic.
Otherwise, public drinking is generally a phenomenon in the summer for the younger generations. There's a spot near me that gets used that way a lot. Never had any problems.
As far as the law goes in the US, you aren't supposed to drink in most public spaces not designated for an event that would allow it. In reality, however, I've drank at the park, the beach, on a boat, on the sidewalk, in the roadway, outside of bars and restaurants as well as at events that aren't designated for drinking like fairs and festivals. I also live in a state where marijuana is still illegal for recreational use and have smoked in all of those same places. I can't recall a single time we've ever been questioned about it, let alone ticketed for it. The closest I have seen is when some dumb ass makes a scene, generally fighting, and officers have to tell people to disperse or if it's bad enough arrest them for disorderly conduct.
I could see how living in a larger city and suburban area might be a little bit stricter but I still haven't seen anyone get a public drinking ticket who wasn't being a nuisance for some other reason.
I think open container laws are also another way to criminalize homelessness.