Anarchy - how is it supposed to work?

[Argeus the Paladin]

I have a few qualms against anarchy, so if anyone could help me clarify it I'd be grateful.

I believe anarchy cannot exist in the real world, not because it will lead to disasters, but because it cannot, as a matter of logic, exist.

Anarchy means devoid of government. Now let's imagine if something happens one day that completely wipes out all government and branches thereof from existence, leaving only Average Joes with one another on this green earth. Anarchy right?

No.

THe flaw, IMHO, is because the Average Joes aren't exactly the same as one another. Some are inherently more talented, more ambitious, stronger, or all of the above. Since there would be no law to stop them from doing what they want, they would establish their own form of rulings so as to best fit their interest. For instance, banding together into a band of robbers and demanding payment from others, weaker and no longer defended by an established law. Or conversely, doling together with a leader to counter the above.

The quirk is this movement, in its own rights, is a form of law/authority establishment.

Could anyone disprove my point?

[The spartan]

You are correct, Anarchy is not a true form of, well, anything. It is just the transitional period between governments.

[Lupu]

Anarchy does and doesn't exist. Establish "anarchy", and you will just have smaller factions. The world is in anarchy now, we just have big countries instead of this "freedom and everyone for himself" idea anarchists have.

[Argeus the Paladin]

So what is the deal with anarchists?

[The spartan]

So what is the deal with anarchists?

A "true" anarchist is pretty deluded individual. There are individuals, though, that believe you should have "less" government.

[dogukan]

So what is the deal with anarchists?

weaker and wealer governments that do nothing but serve the people as they should...as a supporter of anarchism, I am aware that it would not work in this world. There are many reasons behind it, but this does not mean anarchy is/was impossible. There had been small communities that lived some sort of anarchy anyways.

so I go with the socialists...liberalized socialists.

[43rdFoot]

You are currently using a system that is anarchic in nature. The internet.


Anarchy, unfortunately, is impossible to implement elsewhere. People are not all equal in ability; somebody will infringe on the rights of others eventually. Some government is necessary to preserve a respect for rights.

[The spartan]

You are currently using a system that is anarchic in nature. The internet.


Anarchy, unfortunately, is impossible to implement elsewhere. People are not all equal in ability; somebody will infringe on the rights of others eventually. Some government is necessary to preserve a respect for rights.

The internet only gives the illusion of anarchy at best. You still have a service provider to answer to.

[43rdFoot]

The internet only gives the illusion of anarchy at best. You still have a service provider to answer to.

Nope. I can go to any library or e-cafe and have internet access.

[Jom]

Nope. I can go to any library or e-cafe and have internet access.

The forum upon which you post has a hierarchy that you must adhere to, though, with rules to be followed.

[43rdFoot]

The forum upon which you post has a hierarchy that you must adhere to, though, with rules to be followed.

And I can just as easily form my own forum, or I can easily crash his forum and face no consequences. Nothing on the internet is permanent or concrete. Everything can be overcome.

[The spartan]

Nope. I can go to any library or e-cafe and have internet access.

Then they are still a provider to you and can stop the service at any moment...or tell you to leave.

[Argeus the Paladin]

^^ This brings us to the Greater Internet Eff-wad Rule

[roy34543]

Well heres a story I once read that explores the idea of a totally anarchic world . It made me angry every couple of sentences to read it because of the lack of logic in it sometimes. But its interesting nontheless.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

[TheKwas]

There's two definitions of anarchy used in a poltical sense.

One is basically what everyone in this thread is thinking: Anarchy=chaos, destruction, lack of governance, no rules, ect.

The other is a political philsophy, which uses the word 'anarchy' to mean basically lack of hiearchy. Or lack of leaders. There is still governance, but not hiearchical government. Rules and laws Society, in such a political philosophy, is organized by people's collectives, such as communes or syndicates. Issues are decided mostly by direct democracy, rather than representative democracy. Infact, Communism was meant to be an anarchist society with no classes and no government, with Soviet-style socialism as a intermediate stage inbetween Capitalism and communism.

If you had to imagine such a society in one sentence, imagine a society where unions fired their company bosses took over their workplaces.
There's very few examples of anarchism in practice, but probably the biggest and most successful (while it lasted before military conquest) was Revolutionary Spain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

[Strelok]

The internet is the only place where I support anarchy.

The internet is a beautiful place to have anarchy.

<3

[Argeus the Paladin]

The internet is the only place where I support anarchy.

The internet is a beautiful place to have anarchy.

<3

REP+.

Can't have put it better.

[jankren]

Even ants have a social structure.

[Amorphos]

THe flaw, IMHO, is because the Average Joes aren't exactly the same as one another. Some are inherently more talented, more ambitious, stronger, or all of the above.

Key word is ‘inherent’. we inherit traits, that doesn’t mean it make us better than another e.g. a beautiful woman is so due to her genetics, a more ambitious person would be so because a, genetic disposition, and b, culture [rich/poor family type etc].

The general idea is that if one steps out of line and demands he is in control, people just say FU. Hence anarchism is entirely reliant on people banding together to not let one person control them. People would probably rather not have bosses and politicians, but are happy to work together [cooperative] and that is why anarchist usually denote anarcho-syndicates or similar as their model.

As to your ‘mafia scenario’, yes this is always one of the main arguments, and that is why you need some measure of govt, at least to the point of stopping countries from being ruled by mafia. So you need an army and police or the people to act as such. Even if you get people banding together to help each other against mafia and similar, there is always the chance that mafia groups could band together and outgun you.

Really anarchism [as I see it] is an ideal, it is not something you could just become, until you don’t have people wanting to have power over others. It serves purely as something to aim for, it’s a tool to challenge authority, and peoples lesser features. Maybe one day it will happen, but only when people are anarchists.

[Trey]

Even ants have a social structure.

But Bears don't.