ok. as long as the welsh anarchists can assure us that will defend us against the 50,000 or so report violent crimes in wales last year.

Why do people laugh at Anarchists?
"We don’t need the police at all"

Sure. Theres no crime in the UK (or any other country in the world for that matter).
remind me to never read anything the welsh anarchists read again because it just wastes my time

journalist impartiality here

Why do people laugh at non-Anarchists?
"Because they trust police, politicians, and bosses not to abuse their power."

Sure if police vanished overnight there would be chaos. But anarchists aren't asking for the existing society except without police. If there is no such thing as money or ownership of land or property that you aren't actually using, no hierarchies of power, and if people are empowered to do things for themselves, then police won't be needed. Although in a sense, in an anarchist society, everyone will be the police: we all look out for each other.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's too dangerous to put so much power in the hands of one person.

Tell me, sparky: which politicians and police do you trust to be always honest, never lie, and never use their power to enhance their own live and kick other people down?

> Sure if police vanished overnight there would be chaos. But anarchists aren't asking for the existing society except without police.
If people wanted anarchy, then there would be more anarchists.

> .....then police won't be needed. Although in a sense, in an anarchist society, everyone will be the police: we all look out for each other.
If there is a murder or a rape, I'd have more faith in policemen / forensic support teams with 20 years experience on the job under his belt than some amateur sleuths who would turn their hand to the task when it comes up.

> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
A quote by Lord Acton. I think he saying that nearly all great men are bad.
It seems to be conventional wisdom nowadays, but remember its just a quote.

> It's too dangerous to put so much power in the hands of one person.
Gordon Brown? Agreed. That man is incompetent..... the man who said lets sell all our gold at a time when gold is at its lowest price.

> Tell me, sparky: which politicians and police do you trust to be always honest, never lie, and never use their power to enhance their own live and kick other people down?
I don't trust anyone to be always honest etc.etc. Why should I? But that doesn't mean I want to see disbandment of society & police. I would imagine we'd end up in a similar situation as Somalia.

violent crimes? wow. and how many of those did the police prevent?

I'm not saying zero. I am saying "low enough that there is surely a better way". Especially one that doesn't arm a portion of the population give them power over the rest of us and then make them answerable to the state but not, directly, to the people.

what is the criminal justice system in this country for?

to keep our streets safe for everyone - it fails
to stop the spread of drugs - it fails
to prevent violent crime - it fails
to reform those who commit crime - it fails.

to help control the population? to make money for the prison industrial complex? to maintain the violent status quo of state and capitalist oppression? to keep tabs on the population? to punish descent? to carry out some degree of 'revenge' against those who commit crimes, whilst not helping their victims past or future at all? ... more success on this front.


I dont think we should just 'disband' the police, i dont think we should wait for an anarchist/libertaiansocialist/etc revolution to end 90% of crime or whatever.
I think how we 'police' our population and how we deal with criminals really needs to change, radically.


90% of prisoners are doing no one any good in jail and costing £30,000 a year, just to come out and end in the same cycles of poverty desperation drug addiction gang culture mental illness emotional trauma or general self centeredness or whatever else caused them to be there in the first place. the police and the courts do little to help the 'criminals' or the 'victims' or anyone caught up in the whole mess.

meanwhile those that really hurt the planet, its human and non human inhabitans and steal billions walk free. and get big bonuses.

yey justice.

> If people wanted anarchy, then there would be more anarchists.

You don't think those currently in power fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quote? Through subtle means like control of the media as well as by force.

> If there is a murder or a rape, I'd have more faith in policemen / forensic support teams with 20 years experience on the job under his belt than some amateur sleuths who would turn their hand to the task when it comes up.

We have to differ then. I have more faith in a community of equals to both prevent things like this and to sort it out if it does happen, than some cynical cop. Who says in an anarchist society people won't specialise in forensics, anyway?

> A quote by Lord Acton. I think he saying that nearly all great men are bad.
> It seems to be conventional wisdom nowadays, but remember its just a quote.

Exactly, that's why we don't need "great men".We are all of us great in ourselves, we don't need to put some scumbags on a pedestal.

> I don't trust anyone to be always honest etc.etc. Why should I? But that doesn't mean I want to see disbandment of society & police. I would imagine we'd end up in a similar situation as Somalia.

Anarchism is for the enhancement of society, not for its disbandment.

Somalia isn't anarchist, apart from in the tabloid sense. A hierarchical society with warlords at the top is just as bad as a hierarchical society with the wealthy at the top. Anarchism seeks to abolish hierarchies of power.

We've got one anarchist saying to disband the police as we don't need them, one saying that we shouldn't disband them and one saying that we would disband them but anarchist people would specialise in forensics / crime detection etc (ie. gaining the occupation of policemen?)

3 anarchists, and they cannot agree on a principal point of importance. So, if their ommunity is in charge of itself, it obvious won't come to an agreement on many issues. To solve this, you'll have to vote on it (a democracy), or someone takes charge (a dictatorship?). Or several people get so frustrated they enforce power through violence (feudal?), or do nothing to resolve the problems and move forward (go back to the stone age?)

Imagine what 60million is like. Many of whom have proven themselves to be greedy by borrowing astronomical amounts on credit cards to buy leather sofas and plasma tvs that they can't afford. People in their millions who serve their own self-serving interests.

As soon as one group of people agree something it will infringe on another group who don't like it. So you will have to use so form of system to resolve the issue. Whatever decisions are made, they will be made on the self-serving interest of the individual.

When the police were introduced - to smash the chartist movement - they were violently resisted by the communities they had been sent to attack. People should remember that.

No justice no peace, fuck the police.

In response to the comment from sparky:

Firstly I didn't say I was an anarchist, I constantly re-evaluate my views on political/economic systems as i learn more through reading, discussions and most importantly experience.

Anyhow firstly i'd like to say anon advised that we should disband the police force but have people who would specialise in detective work and forensic work and assumable several other similar fields. This does not have to be a 'police force' in any sense of the word today. Eg I don't imagine the forensic scientist attending a murder scene would any powers above and beyond the rest of the population to detain people, use violence or order them around. So this isn't really a contradiction.

Secondly, when i said "I dont think we should just 'disband' the police", I was just making it clear that the entire plan would not just be "lets sack all the police officers next week and then just see what happens". Alternative methods of protecting people and from prevent chaos, would need to be utilised IMO with some planning put in place before hand. Not to say they couldn't just be worked out after, in certain circumstances it has occurred quite peacefully, however this is mostly when the situation is part of a wider revolution.

Which brings me to my next point the only real difference in opinions given that i could see, which was "disband the police now!" "disband the police after the revolution" and mine "maybe something less extreme than point A but not with the wait involved in point B should be done". I doubt I'd find very little ideological differences on my opinion's of policing with either of the posters.

However the most important thing I have to say which is relevent even if everything i've written above is wrong is this; not everyone thinks the same, there is not one solution that will work in all situations, there is not one big plan that can be copied the world over with exact details on how the perfect society operates. To be honest I wouldn't want to live in the world where everyone started a conversation holding the same views. Nearly every anarchist I've met would say the same. Many have ideas on what they think would work best, but very few are unable to put these differences a side and work together.

How can they do this you ask?
Do they fight each other to see who is most powerful? no.
Do they give all there power to an authority to decide for them no?
Do they give up and go home? (to the stone age?) no.
Do they vote a few representatives who are supposedly working in their interests (but easily corruptible) and have them argue it out on their behalf? no ('democracy' as we now have it!)
Rarely have i every seen them resort to voting directly on the issue's to see whether they can get more people to agree with them than disagree (the direct democracy, which you seemed to elude to).
What they do is use the technique that you yourself (any many other people) may very well have been using in your every day lives. they talked about their differences, attempting to assess all views to arrive on an agreement they all felt would move things forward and no one felt strongly opposed to. In other words they reached a consensus. Not everyone always gets the thing that best for their own self interest every single time, but they can give a little to get a little back.

Hell, even the bureaucrats in the EU generally manage to arrive on a consensus eventually.