Could the deep web being close to anarchy be used in arguments for reality

Question

Specifically the fact that it's rampant with child pornography be held as evidence that child rapists would be everywhere in an anarchist society

Comments

that isn't how logic works.

---

i expect this is getting downvoted for a variety of reasons, including that it isn't very carefully worded.
for example, anything can be used as an argument against anarchy, whether or not the argument makes sense.

also, the assessment that the deep web is "close to anarchy" would have to be explained, at least for me. in that way this doesn't seem that different from the determination that somalia, etc, are anarchic scenarios, which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
http://anarchy101.org/2722/is-somalia-an-example-of-an-anarchy-and-if-not-why
http://anarchy101.org/284/how-respond-idiots-that-think-that-somalian-society-anarchy

and finally, are *you* making the argument that people's rampant misbehavior on the deep web proves that anarchy wouldn't work? i'm willing to have a conversation with someone who is making an argument, more than i'm willing to postulate about some hypothetical person making such an argument (although, i might still not be willing enough...).

---

invalid assumptions:

1. deep web being close to anarchy.

not. even. close. nothing about the internet could literally be considered anarchic; almost everything about it relies on controlled hierarchy. from how dns (domain name system) works, to the nocs (network operation centers) that all internet traffic is routed through, to how individuals are allowed to access it. don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the libertarians(tm) that claim it as "freedom".

2. rampant with child pornography.

come on. yes, it does exist on the internet. maybe even moreso than it did before the internet. but there are SO many things that are SO much more prevalent than child pornography. that just sounds like alarmist, single-issue myopia. if child pornography happens to be your pet peeve, right on, have at it. but that doesn't change the scope of its prevalence.

(and i didn't even vote this question down!)

---

yea, i didn't either...

---

I don't know how much the international community knows about the recent child sex scandals that have hit the UK, starting with Radio 1 DJ Jimmy Saville (who targeted children's hospitals) and including TV celebrity Rolf Harris, Liberal member of parliament SIR Cyril Smith (great choice, yer majesty) and many others.  These abuses went on for many years and were covered up by major politicians and senior police officers.  It is worth looking up more if you don't know about it, it is disturbing but a potent reminder of the kind of things our system is capable of both doing and covering up.

Incidentally, isn't funkyanarchy's response about as close to an answer as it's possible to get?

---

I'm glad you mentioned that actually, I think those examples and in fact myriad other ones, both in the past and recently(as of writing this) can be used as an example of how the state not only does not prevent or protect against, any number of socially unacceptable behaviours( behaviours that are deemed unacceptable at any chosen given time). It could also be used as an example of how hierarchical organisation creates situations of impunity, corruption and destruction of agency in those lower down in the pyramid.