Reddit reviews Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society
We found 2 Reddit comments about Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
The best place to start is MnC or Free Markets & Capitalism?.
For additional reading, I would suggest Studies in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory by Kevin Carson, Anarchy and Legal Order by Gary Chartier, Community Technology and Neighborhood Power: The New Localism by Karl Hess, and National Economic Planning: What Is Left? by Don Lavoie.
For some more classic texts, I would recommend What Is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews, Mutual Banking by William B. Greene, Poverty and Progress by Henry George (non-anarchist), and Instead of a Book, By a Man Too Busy to Write One by Benjamin R. Tucker.
Communist societies do not deal with crime because there are no communist societies. You made up a scenario about a crime than was never committed in a society that never existed. This is why you are getting opinions instead of answers (I am not claiming that your question is not good, I am just explaining why you are getting the answers you get.)
I will try to answer as broadly as possible.
>I think the people who advocate for communism focus too much on the economic principles and dont question this idea of a stateless society.
That is because not having a state has not much to do with how we deal with crime. I will explain in a bit...
>...how do we try the said rapist...
With whatever trial society has decided upon. Trials (and laws) do not need a state to exist. The Xeer system is an example of that.
>...what would be the repercussions...
Whatever repercussions society has decided upon. Either set by law or decided by popular opinion/jury/juror.
>...who would decide statute of limitations...
Society. Either by law, popular opinion etc. You get the gist. I am going to skip a few...
>...who gets to decide who can or cant be a judge.
Society. Is there any reason to believe that a society can not decide on those things, voluntarily and democratically without a state? The difference would be that judges can not hold political power in a stateless society like they do now.
>What about conflicts of interest. what about sentencing guidelines, what about bail?
What about them? Conflicts of interest exist today. Sentencing guidelines and bail will be decided by society.
>Is he held until trial or not held until convicted, what about speed of trial.
Society decides about those things.
>I dont think this society that you guys envision without a state can actually work and deal with all these intricacies.
Why not? You have provided zero arguments about that. I should remind you that this sub is called DebateACommunist and not AskACommunist. It is not a debate if you do not present any arguments.
Edit: For a more in-depth analysis I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.de/Anarchy-Legal-Order-Politics-Stateless/dp/1107032288