You're being emotional, not empirical.
What is the mean length of prison sentence? What is the rate of hard labor per sentence? What is the amount of such hard labor? What is the rate of incarceration per capita? How many laws does that society have? Is sentencing proportionate to crimes? How long between indictments and trials? How long spend in remand? What illnesses do prisoners get? What is the rate of death in prison, and what are the causes? What percentage of the population can vote? What percentage of the population can publicly criticize the government? How accessible are public defenders? How many civilians are killed by police? How many civilians are killed while incarcerated? How many death sentences are there per capita?
These are the kinds of measurable variables that can indicate how authoritarian a society is, and this is just related to aw enforcement. If you look at the statistics, and took them seriously, I wonder if you would still think that the US is one of the most authoritarian states in the world.
I have a big cook.
Or we are from different anarchist schools. I am from anarchism of XIX century and your ideas are based on the anarchocapitalism, or liberalism based on the Austrian School of the half of.the XX century.
Classical anarchism was completely antiauthoritarian and considered hierarchies absolutely authoritarian and also companies,...
We will never agree in that. In my logic I see authoritarian any hierarchy or ability to reduce your power of decision. If I am your boss in the company I am already using my power of authority. I can coerce you to do things for me. If you don't do as I say I can fire you, so I am using my position to get things.
Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk
WORK AND FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION AND AGAINST THE INJUSTICE.
Cite them saying anarchy is against all hierarchy.
I know you think it. But you unreasonably refuse to consider the distinction between voluntary and coercive. In so doing you contradict yourself. You say the people should be free to choose. Then you say they cannot choose to work for another.
This?
@ http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarc...eas-of-bakuninThis meant that anarchism "rejects the principle of authority." While Engels never could understand what Bakunin meant by this, the concept is simple. For Bakunin, "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." Instead of this, Bakunin advocated what latter became known as "self-management." In such an organisation "hierarchic order and advancement do not exist" and there would be "voluntary and thoughtful discipline" for "collective work or action." "In such a system," Bakunin stressed, "power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere realisation of the will of all . . . this is the only true discipline, the discipline necessary for the organisation of freedom."
Then you are misunderstanding him. As the following demonstrates:
All he is advocating is no hierarchical order between rulers and ruled.Freedom, as Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation. How a group organises itself determines whether it is authoritarian or libertarian. By the term "principle of authority" Bakunin meant hierarchy rather than organisation and the need to make agreements. He rhetorically asked "does it follow that I reject all authority?" and answered quite clearly: "No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought." He acknowledged the difference between being an authority -- an expert -- and being in authority. Similarly, he argued that anarchists "recognise all natural authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of right." He stressed that the "only great and omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the only one we respect, will be that of the collective and public spirit of a society founded on equality and solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members."
His rejection of God is simply absurd on the face of it.
His rejection of the state is obvious and follows from all else he wrote.
His rejection of capitalism is similar to mine:
He accepts voluntary associations. He rejects the power of capitalist granted by the State.His critique of capitalism built upon Proudhon's. Under capitalism "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." Property meant for the capitalist "the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live . . . by exploiting the work of someone else." For Bakunin, the consistent libertarian must also be a socialist, as "only associated labour, that is, labour organised upon the principles of reciprocity and co-operation, is adequate to the task of maintaining . . . civilised society."
I don't say cannot. I say nobody would agree to do that if he is in senses. How once you've tasted absolute freedom you would agree to go back to a worse situation where you put on the orders of others, authority of others and limiting your freedom.
Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk
WORK AND FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION AND AGAINST THE INJUSTICE.