Also, ostracism and exit. Itās what we do routinely anyway. Weāre all āsplittersā
transgressors have a clear incentive to leave. But they must share society with others first, and those others shape the transgressors lives in non-trivial ways. So transgression is a social failing too. If they want to stay itās everyoneās responsibility. But they should also be allowed to leave
BlueSky does it thread well, so itās getting really hard to follow thisā¦ sorry. Just to say, Iām not necessarily advocating any of this, only trying to correct misconceptions about anarchism. But personally, I wouldnāt want to keep anyone that didnāt want to stay in our group /1
Yes, this is true. The question then is whether a different set of social incentives (i.e., not racist, capitalist or mysoginistic ones), would make local sheriffs any better? Perhaps theyād be just as bad, but by different moral registers? But that would mean only bad apples become sheriffsā¦
Temptingā¦
And cities routinely enact laws that are particular to them, often by referendum, and not just city states.
Sure. Letās say we need regulations for guttering (I spent a week as a 16 yo in arbitration courts where this was the case, and it put me right off law): a) scaling guttering law would make it meaningless (proof in testing), b) specialist knowledge of guttering is unnecessary: we have books for that
This too.
I donāt disagree with this, but I wasnāt really talking about specialisation in a complex division of labour. This makes administration more complex but righting transgressions is not a specialist task per se (itās not rocket science). Also, some hunter gatherers had sophisticated ālegalā processes