[| I, CWAS |]

In the stateless society how is this determined? Who determines the legal age of consent? Can a 10 year old enter into a binding contract? Or consent to anything?

[Squidyak]

if there is no state, there is no law. thus there is no age of consent. there's also no binding contracts. if somebody doesn't want to fulfill contractual obligations, who's gonna make him? a stateless society would be anarchy that would break down under the control of small-time warlords.

[| I, CWAS |]

if there is no state, there is no law.

Not the case.

if somebody doesn't want to fulfill contractual obligations, who's gonna make him?

Private courts. Although I've also had that question, and wonder what makes those courts the end all and be all, instead of a decision handed down by another court. Damn rampant subjectivity in my opinion. I'm researching the issue still and since there are no anarcho-capitalists around, it might take some time to figure out. Although I pose the same question to non capitalist anarchists.

a stateless society would be anarchy that would break down under the control of small-time warlords.

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=57388

[Red Star]

if there is no state, there is no law

Nope. I would not call communes in Spain 'lawless'.

I think you suppose that there was no society before states - which is wrong. States arose from a particular kind of societies - those worked and had internal laws before the advent of a centralized system of control.

[Squidyak]

Not the case.

if there is a law, that means you both have somebody creating laws and somebody will be needed to enforce the laws. that would require a state.

Private courts. Although I've also had that question, and wonder what makes those courts the end all and be all, instead of a decision handed down by another court. Damn rampant subjectivity in my opinion. I'm researching the issue still and since there are no anarcho-capitalists around, it might take some time to figure out. Although I pose the same question to non capitalist anarchists.

and who would enforce that court's decisions? a court system in itself would be the state, and you no longer have a stateless society.

Nope. I would not call communes in Spain 'lawless'.

I think you suppose that there was no society before states - which is wrong. States arose from a particular kind of societies - those worked and had internal laws before the advent of a centralized system of control.

i'm not familiar with communes in spain, but my gut reaction would be no. being as they are in spain, they must still abide by spain's laws. thus there is a state and there is law.

[| I, CWAS |]

if there is a law, that means you both have somebody creating laws and somebody will be needed to enforce the laws. that would require a state.

One does not need a state to have laws, the state was not with humans from the beginning and one can still see isolated tribalist cultures that lack a state.

and who would enforce that court's decisions? a court system in itself would be the state, and you no longer have a stateless society.

The court or agents of it, that would not be a state as it is private (in the acse of anarcho-capitalism). It doesn't govern the affairs of everyday life. An anarchist could answer the question better than I could.

There are some discussions on justice in an anarchic society
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=41582

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=54980

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=51339

i'm not familiar with communes in spain, but my gut reaction would be no. being as they are in spain, they must still abide by spain's laws. thus there is a state and there is law.

Anarchism in Spain

[Red Star]

thus there is a state and there is law.

These were in the times of the Civil War (as CWAS's Wiki link is quite long) - so they did not abide by any state laws, simply as the state aparatus didn't really exist as such: Nationalists vs Republicans were vying for control of it.

[Mikolaj]

I don't know the answer to this one. It's tricky stuff like this that prevents me from becoming an anarchist.

[Gnosis]

"Age of consent" is meaningless, and so is 'anarchy'.

One does not need a state to have laws, the state was not with humans from the beginning and one can still see isolated tribalist cultures that lack a state.

'Society' can be a tribe or a city or a country or a family or even an individual.
If it is an active society, then we can assume that someone decides what kind of action is taken by it.
It isn't always called a 'state', and not all states appear to function in the same ways, but if someone makes a decision and sees to it that the appropriate action is taken in order to bring about the desired results, then there is what we could call a state which creates and gives force to what we could call laws.

I see no difference between the customs and culture of an isolated tribe and the laws of the U.S.

and who would enforce that court's decisions? a court system in itself would be the state, and you no longer have a stateless society.

The court or agents of it, that would not be a state as it is private (in the acse of anarcho-capitalism). It doesn't govern the affairs of everyday life. An anarchist could answer the question better than I could.

If there is a person making decisions and then acting in accordance with them, then there is a state and there is law.
If there is an ego interpreting its relationship with the universe and then acting in accordance with what it considers its standards, then there is a state and there is a law.
A court is just another representation of the workings of the human mind. So is society and so is the state and so is law.

Age of consent? What does that mean? Ultimately nothing. It is an expression of the ego.
The state doesn't really exist, and it's laws don't really have any authority. What would change if the society 'started being anarchist'? Nothing, really, the only difference would be in the interpretation of the individuals who make up the collective, the lack thereof.

The anarchist society is not an 'anarchist society'. For there to be no law and no state, there must be no identity, no interpretation, no desire.

being as they are in spain, they must still abide by spain's laws. thus there is a state and there is law.

If the communes identify with Spain, then they are in a state of Spain and they are not without law.

[Kon]

I don't know the answer to this one. It's tricky stuff like this that prevents me from becoming an anarchist

You would be a libertarian socialist if "became" and anarchist I presume? If you were there would be no need for age of consent, there would be no capitalism so there would be no contracts and therefore legal age of consent would be unessacary.

[Additives Free]

Everyone would have complete Autonomy. There wouldn't be an age of concent.

[jaakko]

government =/= state
political organisation =/= state

Primitive society had political organisation although there was no state. Laws can and have been established by non-state organisations and collectives.

Everyone would have complete Autonomy.There wouldn't be an age of concent

Are you a prophet?

[| I, CWAS |]

So all pedophiles would have to do is have their own collective and breed with other pedophiles and set their own standards?

[Nattering Nabob]

So all pedophiles would have to do is have their own collective and breed with other pedophiles and set their own standards?

...isn't that what the Pseudo-Mormon who was in the news recently did?

[| I, CWAS |]

...isn't that what the Pseudo-Mormon who was in the news recently did?

Warren Jeffs? That would be a good example of what would most likely occur in a stateless society. Without objective morality I fail to see how it won't be pedophile heaven. Many communities would simply evict pedophiles, or pedophiles would leave, and simply go to a community where it is endorsed and supported, that would number in the millions, if we look at the world population.

[Mikolaj]

On the other hand, one could say that you don't need a law to say murder is wrong-why should it be different for pedophilia? Could they just psychologically treat these people for the sickness they have?

[| I, CWAS |]

In early human societies murder was more of a non-issue, unless the person was a member of the tribe. And pedophiles do not believe they are doing harm, save for the violent few.

[/quote]

[jaakko]

You seem to assume the stateless society would inevitably be decentralised. It certainly doesn't have to be. Again, political organisation of society =/= state.

So all pedophiles would have to do is have their own collective and breed with other pedophiles and set their own standards?

That's what they could do right now. There's just the problem that there exist certain wider 'collectives' which probably wouldn't allow it.

Without objective morality I fail to see how it won't be pedophile heaven.

Moral norms exist in every society, with or without state. The existence of state doesn't make them any more objective, just as they weren't any less objective before the formation of state.

[getfiscal]

Everyone would have complete Autonomy. There wouldn't be an age of concent.

This doesn't really mean much. Almost every modern ideology claims to be developing complete autonomy. The point is that there is a conflict between a person in the process of developing their autonomy and those in the community who want to prey on their inability to express reasoned consent. The abuse of young people, even most events where tacit consent may be given at a young age, can cause serious mental problems later in life. I mean, not just at a "bad memories" level, which seems to be a popular idea, but at a physical level that basically wires the brain in screwy ways. That radically affects their ability to make autonomous choices in the future, which is why so many abuse survivors become abusers.

I think that the anarchist approach to the question would be consistent with standard liberal arguments about the community holding rights in trust for those who are unable to defend themselves. The point of divergence would probably come in terms of institutional responses. Liberals tend to focus on arbitrary age limits and punitive responses. I think anarchists would focus more on the cycle of abuse, intervening to try and help both victims. They would also probably focus on the relationship between hierarchy/authority and non-consensual sex, in those areas where it is still relevant.

Because anarchist systems would seek to minimize hierarchy and authority, and treat child-protection as a more integral community project, they might be able to significantly reduce the problem. But I don't think that can be determined a priori, others may fairly suggest that lack of a specific family support system with authority and responsiblity will lead to more abuse and less punishment. Any reflection on experience should show that our current systems facilitate the abuse of millions of people, many in extreme ways and many as part of a massive underground business. At some level it is difficult to see how things could be worse.

It is also true that the idea of children as protected others is relatively new, and that for much of history children were seen as almost strange and dwarf-like new growing people. But I think the idea of child protection is a progressive innovation.