Radical politics

[Vitriol]

I said i'd give you a reply- but I'm going to keep it brief as this is an old thread and I'd mostly be repeating earlier points.

If you read the germanic codes and compare them to that of Justinian it becomes very clear why they were sidelined. The roman system was better developed and better able to meet the needs of a more complex urbanised society in a fair and equitable way. Prof Robin Evans-Jones and Prof D. Mackenzie have written extensively on the subject. i' recommend looking into their work if you have the time.

I don't think believing in anarchy is the same as being apolitical. It is believing in not having an organised form of government. The political system is the lack of any organisation. Unlike a corporeal example like hair incorporeal systems can absolutely be negatives. Being apolitical is having an apathy or hostility towards political affiliations not necessarily believing in governance without a governmental system although i acknowledge that there will naturally be considerable overlap.

Your described society is what Christie identifies as Tribalism and while novel and different to what we currently have it is somewhere on the spectrum between the twin radical political-economic points of communism and anarchism. Where it sits would depend on the detail of the specific arrangements but if it functions at or close to either extreme i think it would fail.

Nils Christie writing in the 90s described a similar society amongst tribals in botswana. I think his writing while making some valid criticisms of western systems as they were massively over glamorized the way such contract based tribal arrangements actually function (or indeed malfunction) in practice. It wasn't my cup of tea but you might enjoy it- its full of theories and analogies comparing human behaviour to economics. I think. Its been a while since i read it.

I told you this wasn't worth waiting 10 hours for!

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I don't think believing in anarchy is the same as being apolitical. It is believing in not having an organised form of government. The political system is the lack of any organisation. Unlike a corporeal example like hair incorporeal systems can absolutely be negatives. Being apolitical is having an apathy or hostility towards political affiliations not necessarily believing in governance without a governmental system although i acknowledge that there will naturally be considerable overlap.

I think that the distinction between more theoretical types of anarchism such as anarcho-egoism and more practical types such as anarcho-communism. Anarcho-Egoism doesn't really have anything against coercion and is more a rejection of morality. It is from that that as an anarcho-egoist I support an oligarchy that is disguised as a poorly structured democracy so that the people think that they have actual control over what the government does. I just recognize no state's authority to say that I cannot overthrow contemporary governments with my union of egoists and create a new one that I am in control of.

By contrast anarcho-communism advocates a specific system and is thus unworkable (anarcho-capitalism sometimes goes towards a de facto state so it is a middle ground)

Your described society is what Christie identifies as Tribalism and while novel and different to what we currently have it is somewhere on the spectrum between the twin radical political-economic points of communism and anarchism. Where it sits would depend on the detail of the specific arrangements but if it functions at or close to either extreme i think it would fail.

Nils Christie writing in the 90s described a similar society amongst tribals in botswana. I think his writing while making some valid criticisms of western systems as they were massively over glamorized the way such contract based tribal arrangements actually function (or indeed malfunction) in practice. It wasn't my cup of tea but you might enjoy it- its full of theories and analogies comparing human behaviour to economics. I think. Its been a while since i read it.

At least for my position it probably would in practice be the same as western countries with the only difference being that rich people are more fertile than poor people, a basic income would be provided but it would be done such that although a person is able to live off of it they wouldn't be able to support a family with it and no support would be given to poor mothers or anyone else (if you want to be secure then buy insurance or join a friendly society or get help from family), little labour regulations, trials will be performed algorithmically rather than via human judge with penalties being given first in utility and then converted into actual tangible penalties in order to cause a consistent disincentive from committing crimes and penalties being able to be applied to family members (if rape causes pregnancy then it must be aborted as a punishment to the rapist), polygyny, formal rules governing how marriages and families work (written by the individuals involved), designer babies, and a religion similar to reform judaism practiced by the elites

Thanks for the reccomendation

If you read the germanic codes and compare them to that of Justinian it becomes very clear why they were sidelined. The roman system was better developed and better able to meet the needs of a more complex urbanised society in a fair and equitable way. Prof Robin Evans-Jones and Prof D. Mackenzie have written extensively on the subject. i' recommend looking into their work if you have the time.

I think that likely you are correct about a large portion of germanic vs roman law. I am mostly taking the side of Germanic law for a few specific issues (wergeld, infanticide, punishment by proxy, polygyny [although it was pretty uncommon])