in fact, a lot of anarchists - and i'm one of them - will argue that not only is it the case that we don't need laws to force us to behave, but it's the process of writing and enforcing laws via the state that makes us behave so shoddily. look at isis, for a demonstration of this theory at it's most extreme. in the west, the state often coddles and protects antisocial actors from any sort of meaningful justice. so, the idea is that abolishing the state should lead to more virtuous behaviour, not less virtuous behaviour.
it's not some kind of empty rebellion, it's a critique of the foundational basis of the social contract, and a rejection of the conservative concept of "human nature". the state doesn't keep us in line, it keeps us out of line.
"the policeman is here to preserve disorder".
but, we need some way to right wrongs, then, to undo transgressions, to fix problems. the socialist critique of policing is actually just that it doesn't actually work; putting people in jail is an intimidation tactic to advance the interests of the powerful, it's not a way to advance any sort of actual justice. nothing is undone. nobody is compensated. but, the king has his rule enforced with violence, in the hopes that it will scare people into line. this is simply barbaric, there is no other way to describe it. a tort process may often be incomplete, but it's usually a good start, and generally the right way to think about how to fix antisocial behaviour.
i admit having an affinity for the civilization of northern europe, even more so than that of southern europe, and the legal system is something that i think that british civilization got uniquely right. my anarchism is very rooted in common law. and, i've suggested before that we can perhaps look at the situation that developed in britain after the withdrawal of the legions to get a precedent for the challenges that anarchy would face, in it's initial years - and look at the subsequent development of british common law for some guidance in how to move forward.
we were always anarchists, up in the north, after all.
"the policeman is here to preserve disorder".
but, we need some way to right wrongs, then, to undo transgressions, to fix problems. the socialist critique of policing is actually just that it doesn't actually work; putting people in jail is an intimidation tactic to advance the interests of the powerful, it's not a way to advance any sort of actual justice. nothing is undone. nobody is compensated. but, the king has his rule enforced with violence, in the hopes that it will scare people into line. this is simply barbaric, there is no other way to describe it. a tort process may often be incomplete, but it's usually a good start, and generally the right way to think about how to fix antisocial behaviour.
i admit having an affinity for the civilization of northern europe, even more so than that of southern europe, and the legal system is something that i think that british civilization got uniquely right. my anarchism is very rooted in common law. and, i've suggested before that we can perhaps look at the situation that developed in britain after the withdrawal of the legions to get a precedent for the challenges that anarchy would face, in it's initial years - and look at the subsequent development of british common law for some guidance in how to move forward.
we were always anarchists, up in the north, after all.