Tiresia

Yes, and liberalism helps justify that by focusing so heavily on individualist worth and wellbeing. Hence "opiate of the people".

Could you explain why?

I do think liberalism carries the blame for being an opiate of the people more powerful and more closely bonded with capitalism than religion ever was. The focus on individual worth and individual freedom has made people way more amicable to being pitted against each other in a capitalist race to the bottom than even 19th/early 20th century conservatism.

Also local capitalism is awful too. Even just one town can have landlords and serfs, merchants and beggars, guildmasters and abused interns.

Update: I took you up on the invitation and asked questions in the abolition community and I got banned and my comments removed without reply, lol.

It's a 1000 times improvement the same way riding a horse is a 1000 times improvement over riding an army of snails. It's possible because nobody was doing the old thing because it was garbage.

"Strong current flow" is informal language, but both it and photoresponse refer to the electrical power that comes out. In theory you would just divide that by the incoming solar flux and get the efficiency. For now it's only in a lab setting, though, so we'll have to see what the practical efficiency will be if this is actually incorporated into a reasonable solar cell.

So yeah, apparently barium titanate solar panels used to be extremely terrible, and now they might become competitive with further research.

Oh hey, a noble savage. It's been a while since I've seen one this blatant. Historically, the answer to rape for most people between 10,000 years ago and 200 years ago was "It's awesome, as long as you do it to lower class people, spouses, or foreigners", and the answer for murderous tendencies was "Finally a real man. Earn glory in battle, and have fun raping and pillaging out there. Just don't do it to us or we will send more murderous people after you to torture you to death".

Those are a lot of ways of saying "Don't look right now but there's an explanation behind the curtain, please go bother someone else".

• If I accept your suggestion to argue on the other subreddit, your post and comment here appear like they are uncriticized.
• Transformative justice requires a mechanism of transformation. How do you change the systems of injustice if their body is their weapon and their mind the system that begets violence?
• Restorative justice can never fully restore heinous crimes. A murdered person can not be revived, a sexual trauma will not heal. That should not prevent us from making major steps in that direction, but it does not bring the murder victim back to life.
• If you know historical examples of peoples with low rates of murderous violence and rape, you could name some of them specifically along with their mechanism of justice to see if it's better than imprisonment.
• If you refer to literature, cite pages and quote passages that are relevant, if you can. At the very least give the names of the literature while explaining what you got from them that is relevant here.
• If you say people have developed ways to deal with an absence of policing, give examples of those ways and whether they are able to achieve more justice through those means available to them.

Given the sort of language you're using, you seem to be to describing a vague cultural osmosis version of the Iroquois confederacy. So let me be specific: the Iroquois executed people that were considered too dangerous to be left alive. Prisons would be an improvement on that, now that we have more resources to spare and a better understanding of psychiatry.

I wrote my comment in order to learn. You have given me nothing except vague statements about knowledge existing elsewhere that we can learn from. Do you actually know anything yourself?

No, you disagree with myself and pretty much all historical usage on the definition of "right-wing". Whether it's the original right wing in the parliament of the first French Republic, monarchists in general, 19th century British Tories, imperialists in general, ethno-nationalists, fascists, etc.

How would you prevent a police class from forming through people's natural or situational preferences?

Even with a whole armed society, is a new mother going to put as much violence-backed pressure towards ensuring her vision of justice gets realized as a rabble-rousing 18-year-old with Ideas? What stops the hottest heads from prevailing and using recklessness to walk over others?

Or in common parlance, what prevents this from devolving into mob justice?

It seems possible that you could prevent it, but it's not a matter of good faith and not even of (post-)proletarian consciousness. You would actually need commonly agreed upon rules or structures that draw power away from those most eager to wield it. You need people willing to defend the rights of those who later turn out to be guilty of heinous crimes, people willing to protect people guilty of some crimes from excessive violence, etc.

USSR justice wasn't just bad because it was classist, there was also a general disregard for due process, with few people willing to stand up for those accused and many eager to treat them with extreme prejudice. It was very easy for people to end up in a self-reinforcing downward spiral of general opinion that lead to extreme punishment even if their guilt was never properly established.

I don't really know the argument for abolishing prisons entirely. Using them for punishment is dumb, but there are people who will actually engage in violence against innocent others. What would you do with a serial killer or a rapist who doesn't yet believe that what they did shouldn't be repeated? How else are you going to handle that 1/10,000th of the population?