They'll be trained through the education system I mentioned earlier.
And also cops are regular people dude. They just have a different sort of job.
Well some workers know how to weld while others don't. Does that make them a "special class" and thus a state? No. It doesn't.
Difference alone is not capable of creating hierarchy. I've already defined what I mean by hierarchy before.
The detectives only apprehend or discover the criminal, they don't have the authority to deal out punishments and they only have power because people give them that power.
A special class not in the sense of the regularly referred to class system, but in the sense of a specialized set of people.
If they're professionals, they're not like everyone else. And if they're like everyone else, then they're not professionals.
There wouldn't be an organizers. The detectives would work with other actors in an ad hoc way.
Then most crimes wont be solved, and those which are solved wont be closed since it'll be incredibly hard to catch the guy.
Alright, where the fuck did I say that? Tell me. Where in the material your quoting did I say what you're saying now?
Stop making assumptions.
By inclining that everyone in a neighborhood would know each other and that there won't be any blind spots that no one can see in that "neighborhood", then what you're describing is either a town or a village.
For that type of system to work, you'd have to replace cities with cluster of towns. And if you don't know how that would work, you can look at Baalbek where it is, in reality, more of a cluster of towns than it is a typical city.
Furthermore, in such a system (i.e. town clusters), each town has all of its essential services and institutions with only the largest ones in bigger hubs like Baalbek (the inner city) and Zahleh (the inner city).
For example, each town would have its own water sources and wells and generators. While in a city, the are centralized water and power stations.
Baalbek is the closest example to a highly decentralized governance system, and even then there is a state.
Stuff like this makes me wish there was a facepalm emoji.
There are neighborhoods in cities you idiot. That's what I'm referring to, everyone knows their neighborhood and who lives there.
How are you this dumb? Where else would a neighborhood be? Neighborhoods are always in cities.
anyone who lived in a city can tell you this doesn't happen.
So you're saying Amber Alert is a "mini-state"? Should Amber Alert declare independence from America?
The amber alert system is provided by the police, it's not a network on its own, it's a service provided by a network.
And the police themselves are part of an even bigger network and so on.
It doesn't say anything about being trained or being a professional. Just because you're a volunteer doesn't mean you aren't a trained professional. They are not mutually exclusive.
And if anyone can volunteer, then you wont have only professionals doing the job. By definition.
And if you only want professionals to volunteer, and need more of them to do so, then you need some sort of incentive for them to do so in that specific area, like a job basically.
Jobs are voluntary you know.
Yeah the rest of this is predicated on the idiotic assumptions that volunteers can't be trained professionals.
If everyone is allowed to volunteer, then you'll have most being untrained non-professional (in that specific task, not in general) ordinary people.
It's actually the opposite.
If people are inherently selfish, greedy, and repugnant why would you trust them to govern you?
Why would you think that would be a good idea? "Oh people are just awful! Let's give some of them absolute power! That makes sense!".
A thing called checks and balances.
All developed countries have it and most developing countries as well.
People in governance aren't free to do whatever they want, there are laws they have to abide by.
1. If there was an ideological anarchist society (as in, one that had an idea about what institutions to create in an anarchist society to maintain peace and balance) such issues won't occur because anarchists already have ways of settling disputes in non-violent ways and alot of the common reasons for disputes won't happen because property rights would be different.
What if someone didn't adhere to the ideology?
What if an entire portion of the population didn't?
What if someone was drunk or high?
2. Attempting to murder someone is always a big risk because they could potentially murder you to and if you succeed, well guess whose family or community is after your head. In fact, the idea of agreeing not to kill each other over every little thing is what let us progress as a species and no, there wasn't an authority to tell them not to.
But, in a city, where no one knows each other, and where it's incredibly hard to know who's the murderer, it's much easier to kill and get away with it.
You can even move town if you've been found out.
There is a majority of a population that thinls wreckless people or people with anger issues are dangerous. What I expect to happen is that they're going to get the anger issues and wreckless ones therapy or some kind of help. And if they do anything you can look at the system I proposed above.
They'd have to be extremely manipulative to even cause an entire town to kill each other and if that was the case it wouldn't even matter if there were policemen there. Hell, manipulative people find it easiest to take control of people in power. It would be easier for a manipulator to cause chaos in a hierarchial society than in an anarchist one.
And this is a point I alluded to as well, if everyone has to keep worrying about everyone else, then they would be too busy watching their back to do anything.
No it wouldn't. At least the family of the abused won't tolerate it and the community won't tolerate it because that would effect their lives too.
How would they know?
Do you know why domestic abuse and abuse, in general, is so hard to eliminate?
There's no capitalism. Anarchism is anti-capitalism.
So there wont be a market or money?
Because predatory businesses exist in any unregulated market, be it capitalist or socialist.
Well the U.S. has both of those and murder rates are still high and police brutality is also high.
Actually no, the US, when put in comparison with other countries with less police, is much safer.
And police brutality in the US I've found to be overblown by the media rather being a systemic problem everywhere.
There are problems, especially in areas where gang violence is spread, sure. But this is not the norm everywhere.
If you go around in Syria, even before the war, you'd know exactly what I mean.
It isn't a stranger. Generally the community in anarchist societies would be tight. If a foreigner was attacking a foreigner that would be a no-no (and they would step in) but if a foreigner was attacking a member of the community or if a member of the community was attacking a foreigner everyone would join in.
But, again, why?
Why would they step in?
Game theory. Look into it.
Defense patrols and nightly watches A. don't rely on a trained force at all and B. aren't synonymous with the police.
In a community where there isn't a police, everyone would need basic combat training (i.e. the Militia), and a special set needs additional training (defense forces).
When did I suggest any of this?
There won't always be a criminal or murderer in their community and if there was it would be obvious.
Furthermore having a police doesn't stop people today from being paranoid of criminals breaking into their house or something.
Because police deal with criminals after a crime has been committed not before.
That's inclined in your proposal. It's a logical conclusion.
And sure, the police acts after the event, but the existence of the police and jails and authority in general acts as a deterrent to crime.
Attend where? There isn't a centralized schooling place, the school is integrated into the urban fabric of the city itself. Workshops, mueseums, art galleries, people, professionals, etc. would offer classes if they want to. Then someone would compile every single person or place offering classes and that would be the "curriculum". A child might see people learning to read or having fun making pottery and want to go learn or do that. Children have an innate desire to learn and parents have an innate desire to do whatever their child wants. There's no elections here
And you don't see why this type of system is incredibly deficient?
You do know that there are several issues with the way schools are organized and operate right? And I mean down to their most basic concepts. The schools we currently see today are based on the Prussian model which was designed to prepare students for the military not teach them life skills.
What you're trying to construct here is a False equivalence fallacy.
The school system being broken in one country ( I assume it's the US's schooling system you're referring to), that doesn't mean that it's broken everywhere else.
My idea is based on how homeschooling works. In fact, it's because of the decentralized nature of the education that homeschooled students do so well in both conventional schools and college as well as gaining higher IQs.
Homeschooling works with already established curriculums and rules established by professionals in a central authority. It's not random.
It's the complete opposite. I don't want to replace it with a privatized schooling system, I want to replace with something more radical.
How is it the opposite? That's exactly what they want.
No. You don't. I'm not even sure what "optimal results" is supposed to mean. Do you want everyone to get As? Is that your goal for school?
Everyone gaining all the basic information and education needed to be a functional member of society and prepare them to specialize in latter educational years (higher education)
My system is nothing comparable to the system before schools.
What you're offering is exactly what was in place before mass schooling systems were introduced.
They can do that too. I'm not sure why you think that's incompatible with my system.
How? If you want to abolish schools and universities?
I don't know if you're aware of this, but, in higher education, instructors are specialized. Not every instructor can teach all of the material, rather each is specialized in a section.
If you're associating democracy with government you've clearly lost your mind.
Democracy is a form of governance.
And democratic governments do exist.
Whether it is a part of a state doesn't matter. Your definition of a state is a network or something (you're pretty ambigious as to how you define state) so by default Amber Alert should be a state.
The amber alert is a SERVICE
offered by an existing network of institutions and entities.
Define "area". Do you mean every single house is an area? Should they pay taxes for living in their house?
Furthermore these services are provided by people other than the government. Should they pay taxes for those too?
And governments aren't guaranteed to spend that tax money into those places. They could spend it all on military too.
The area can be anything from a neighborhood to a town or an entire city.
Depending on how you choose to organize service and infrastructure grids.
And for those services (basic services), they're either privatized where you pay the government taxes and the government pays them to provide the service for everyone. State owned where the state provides everything. Or fully privatized with no government intervention where you need to pay before you can use them.
Health care is such service. And in places where the state doesn't interfere at all, those who can't pay die infront of hospitals because they couldn't pay for needed emergency care.
It wasn't. There was no "substantial" government investment in anything, anywhere. Governments of the era were tiny. For example: the national apparatus of the Dutch government in 1900 consisted of about 1000 people in total. The tax burden was a whopping 2% of GDP. And yet... industrialisation was well underway. (And that made the subsequent 20th century explosion of governmental size possible.)
My argument is that the kind of enlarged government that you can create with "modern" taxes isn't required for industrialisation. Modest internal improvements have been undertaken by night watchman states for centuries if not millennia, and therefore demonstrably do not require such taxes or such a bigger government.
Anyone who thinks taxes and governments didn't have role in building civilization, is someone who doesn't know history at all.
Go read your history.
I've already given you a general answer as to how it would be done.
Furthermore do you know what a meshnet is?
Mesh networks can not sustain the scale of internet we have today.
That needs large servers to sustain it.
And based on your general answer, the internet and communications in general would have to be scaled back radically since there wont be sufficient infrastructure to maintain them.
What about "doing a screening process" and "tell helpers not to touch equipment" do you not understand.
Then no one will get training, because without that education, no one will pass.
These things already occur in today's society anyways. They do work.
In professions, not in general sciences. And even then, in professions, the best trainee can mess things up.
Most middle management are just worthless anyways and generally managers are very bad at actually knowing the intricacies of the factory or production, they just invent deadlines and that's about it.
Direct managers are professionals in the field who just learned administrative skills.
In-direct higher-ups are administrators who organize these direct managers in their facilities and organize with other facilities.
Workers can do that far better.
There are about a million other forms of non-capitalist exchange other than "barter" although if that's what people want they can do it.
Read up on collective force or the labor theory of value.
You're the one proposing, how will you run a society without currency?
They are very messy. Companies don't establish connections based on hierarchy; why would they intentionally get a bad deal just so they can form a hierarchial network?
The hierarchy is inside of them.
Between each other, they form supply chains.
People who are investing in science or the scientists who participate in collective luxuries.
Why would people give rewards for things that wont benefit them directly? Or, potentially, don't even understand or know what's all about.
And why the hell would you force people to do something they aren't passionate about for the money just because they're "good at it"
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They have a choice to make when choosing speciality and what to do in life.
Some people are just passionate about money and luxury.
The bad scientists don't do any of the work. They usually aim to be professors and directors, not researchers. The people you see doing long hours of research and effort at NASA or whatever are there for their field not because they want money.
Also the first point depends on the field. There's alot more engineers out there for the money than there are sociologists or biologists. You don't become a complexity scientist for the money.
Why would supply suddenly go down? Why would my model not produce mass production networks.
Because your model is based on abolishing these networks.
More specifically, explain why mass production networks need to hierarchial or have to have organizers without using buzzwords like "order" or "organization".
Because modern economies aren't based on basic things like wheat, they're based on things like cars, airplanes, chemicals, computers, etc
Things that are highly intricate and require a significant degree of specialization at each part of it. To be able to sustain this production, you need massive numbers of people (And by massive, I mean by the millions) working together in a very large supply chain in a very organized way where each of these people does a very specific set of tasks, all to deliver a final product like a car or a computer.
When removing organizers and introduce a system based on negotiations between workers, you then would have to wait for negotiations to take place among millions if not 10s of millions of people and reach a middle ground between all of them for each every single minor change.
And if a handful of members in just one part of that network didn't show up or stopped working, it collapses and the process has to be done all over again.
Organizers and administrators, in general, ensure that these processes function effectively and efficiently and ensure a backup or a safe plan for any malfunction.
Why would no one do it?
Because the majority are there for the money and the prestige, and your system removes both.
Heck, that's why the USSR lost steam and fell apart internally. It took away the monetary reward and the prestige that came with being a scientists so most left, and not many new ones were incentivized to join in.
You claim to live in Syria, you should know why removing these incentives is a shitty move.
The reasons why Syria stagnated in the 90s and never recovered is exactly the same reason why the Soviet Union stagnated in the 70s and 80s, and why China had to overhaul it's science and tech policy to avoid stagnation.
You remove the reward and the prestige from science, and for most people it simply become illogical to go through all that work to get the exact same results.
There's already entities willing to give major amounts of resources and put major effort into science without the need for middlemen.
Those wouldn't exist under an anarchist system.
Changed the parts that were wrong. In short, yes. It's not that different from the current system.
That's not how the current system works, I was describing what I assume would be your system.
And I was being sarcastic about it.
It's very similar to how things work now.
Nothing you describe is similar to how things are now.
Holy shit, I accidently closed the tab and thought I lost the entire post, managed to recover it.