Would Anarchy Work?

[Tasoth]

I've seen this. The person who I got into the argument with thought that anarchy would work because everyone does what is morally right to them. When I brought up the fact that everyone can have different morals and things like rape and murder can be acceptable to certain people, he ignoreed it. It also seems he believes society would fall back into city states and everyone would live in harmony, that warlords would not arise and the people would take those who are aggressive and wrong out of power peacifully. Didn't acknowledge the fact that that isn't always possible. On the area of lawbreakers, a council of judges elected by the people would work and they serve for a short term and inturn be watched over by an another coucil. Again he refused to except the fact that some might not want to leave their position. In his entire agruement he seemed to prove himself right even though he never address the situations I asked about and at the end complained that I had whined for 3 hours about the same thing that he had "Proven" would be taken care of. At the end of it all I felt was tired and that he had no idea what the real world was.

[Shinova]

I've seen this. The person who I got into the argument with thought that anarchy would work because everyone does what is morally right to them. When I brought up the fact that everyone can have different morals and things like rape and murder can be acceptable to certain people, he ignoreed it. It also seems he believes society would fall back into city states and everyone would live in harmony, that warlords would not arise and the people would take those who are aggressive and wrong out of power peacifully. Didn't acknowledge the fact that that isn't always possible. On the area of lawbreakers, a council of judges elected by the people would work and they serve for a short term and inturn be watched over by an another coucil. Again he refused to except the fact that some might not want to leave their position. In his entire agruement he seemed to prove himself right even though he never address the situations I asked about and at the end complained that I had whined for 3 hours about the same thing that he had "Proven" would be taken care of. At the end of it all I felt was tired and that he had no idea what the real world was.

So in other words he thinks everyone will just get along nice and dandy?

Then point to him the fact that you two just disagreed and got into conflict, and ask him to recall all the other times he's gotten into arguments with someone else.

[Ignorant twit]

Anarchy won't work, because ultimately it comes down to "who has the most guns."

Which is exactly HOW anarchy works. Jeeeeezuuuus man. Anarchy is anarchy... Not a nice controlled socialist utopia!

Which means that if a group of us decide to get togethor, pool resources, time and talent, and oh say form a standing army ... we have more guns.

Anarchy only works if you assume human nature drastically changes. Or if there is some way that every body carrying their own guns is superior to having standing armies and organized society.

What is so hard to understand? Governments came into being for a reason.

[Tasoth]

So in other words he thinks everyone will just get along nice and dandy?

Then point to him the fact that you two just disagreed and got into conflict, and ask him to recall all the other times he's gotten into arguments with someone else.

The thing is, when every I talk to him, he comes off as a spoiled only child. Everyone is below him and its his job to make fun of and destroy the other person emotionally and when you do it back, he gets all pissy.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Due to a recent convo I had with a friend over why anarchy would fail and how she argued it would eventually make a better society, what are the main reasons for anarchy becoming unworkable?

I just want a good show of points why such an initiative would be impossible and reasons for that point.

Anyone who wants to argue for anarchy is free to do so as long as the debate is kept civil.

Have at it!

Anarchy is, honestly, a bloody stupid idea. To have anarchy requires the total dissolution of government. Without some sort of central government to direct public works, for example, infrastructure would rapidly fall into chaos and decay, save for pockets where society remained more organized. Also, if there was no government and social order suffered a terminal breakdown, you'd rapidly have a number of people getting together seeking to impose their own order on things.

Anarchy causes many more problems than it would solve.

[Lord of the Farce]

Anarchy causes many more problems than it would solve.

And those who are smart enough will band together, and form a government to protect themselves from lawless murderous bastards, and the whole point of having the anarchy will be moot.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Anarchy causes many more problems than it would solve.

And those who are smart enough will band together, and form a government to protect themselves from lawless murderous bastards, and the whole point of having the anarchy will be moot.

Indeed. Then again, I propose, yes, yes, anarchy now! But . . . only give this board enough time to gather up a standing army to seize control after the anarchy was in place. Anarchy is only useful if it can be used to impose a good sort of order afterwards. Otherwise it's just rule by biker gangs.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Anarchy is a unworkable concept. Forget about gangs and guns and lets take a look at something far more mundane.

The Courts. Without a govt system to maintain courts there is no legal structure for even the simplest of things.

30 day evicition notice? No such thing in anarchy.
Neighbors tree fall into your yard and break the fence. Too bad. Pay for it yourself.
You said you own your house? Where is the deed?
Public schools? Not for you, you are a female. Go home and cook.



My personal experience is a lot of people who claim to be anarchists are really just young folks who are overly idealistic and a little removed from the responsibilities of real life.

[Howedar]

Anarchy is nothign more than a quickly-passing phase. It begins with government, and ends with government. Prolonged anarchy is impossible for all intents and purposes.

[kojikun]

Anarchy leads directly to mobocracy: I've got a bigger gun, so you're my bitch, and now I'm king, so you can suck it like the bitch you are.

Anarchists, like Communists, don't grasp the results of their masturbation fantasies.

[RedImperator]

Anarchists make Communists look like world-weary pragmatists.

[Wicked Pilot]

HOORAH ANARCHY!
ISN'T IT BEAUTIFUL?

[Knife]

Anarchy is the opposite of civilization. You can't have one while the other exsists. Given the choice, I choose civilization.

[Darth Wong]

Anarchy leads directly to mobocracy: I've got a bigger gun, so you're my bitch, and now I'm king, so you can suck it like the bitch you are.

That's why anarchists are always either foolishly naive, morally depraved, or a tough-guy wannabe. They either picture humanity as some noble thing which it is not, they picture themselves as warlords, or they believe they are nigh-invincible and so would thrive in a lawless society.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well so far all the points are pretty much what I brought up against my liberal and naïv friend (did I mention she is also a bit gothic?) yet I doubt even showing her this thread with so many arguing against it, she'd change her mind. She will probably bring up this argument againt tonight since it's one she is determined to settle for once, though she will still proclaim that humanity will change their nature and become caring, sharing, peace loving people as individuals (I have no idea how you can avoid settlements, even cavemen had some form of hierarchal and organised structure.

In anycase, I'll post her replies when I show her this and try and hammer the logic back again. That or make her watch Mad Max or The Postman or something that she no doubt has not seen.

On a related note, whilst looking for good essays and sites last night on Google against anarchy I noticed the majority of websites and groups on USENET were for anarchy. Is the world really this far gone when it comes to intellect or have we a VERY vocal minority?

[NecronLord]

That or make her watch The Postman

That's forbidden by the UN convention on human rights.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That or make her watch The Postman

That's forbidden by the UN convention on human rights.

Just as well, mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome is on tonight anyway.

[Peregrin Toker]

I think that pure anarchy is a very bad idea, but dissolving the government structure - as we know it and replace it with a less hierarchial system might work. (however, can that be called "anarchy" at all??)

As for why anarchism wouldn't work well, my argument is that very few people have the individual initiative to keep society running without some sort of institutions holding everything together.

[Darth Wong]

On a related note, whilst looking for good essays and sites last night on Google against anarchy I noticed the majority of websites and groups on USENET were for anarchy. Is the world really this far gone when it comes to intellect or have we a VERY vocal minority?

Look for UFO's and you will find that almost all websites discussing the subject believe they're genuine aliens. Look for Loch Ness and you will find that almost all of the websites discussing the subject believe in the monster. Look for creationism and you will find that almost all of the websites discussing the subject believe in it. Nothing new, I'm afraid.

[Enforcer Talen]

give me anarchy and Ill give you a serial killer proto warlord.

[Iceberg]

[Queeb Salaron]

http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif

That was one of the funniest goddamned things I've ever read.

Well, ok, maybe not... but it was still pretty good.

[Hobot]

The countries in Northern Europe have the highest living standards in the world and they tend to have a lot of government control. Compare that to third world countries like in Africa which hardly have any government and you can see that anarchy isn't the best of ideas.

I think the problem with anarchists is that they see the government as being a separate entity that they have no say in and that has complete control over them. That might be true in a country like China, Cuba, or the old Iraq, but Western democracies are almost the opposite.

[Kerpunk]

Yet where exists true Democracy? On the eve of local elections here, I cannot help but think that our society is in fact an Oligarchy which pretends to give us a say every now and again. Democracy in Ancient Greece was still not perfect, but it was damn closer to the ideal of 'power to the majority' than we are- and it excluded 80% of the population!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Due to a recent convo I had with a friend over why anarchy would fail and how she argued it would eventually make a better society, what are the main reasons for anarchy becoming unworkable?

I just want a good show of points why such an initiative would be impossible and reasons for that point.

Anyone who wants to argue for anarchy is free to do so as long as the debate is kept civil.

Have at it!

"Genuine" Anarchy would never work - However, we have an excellent example of classical Anarchy, or the lack of a central government. That's called Somalia, and there the Gun rules.

If you want a country where people have individual freedom but that freedom can't be trampled by guys from tribal units driving around in technicals, you need a carefully balanced Republic/Confederacy based on libertarian principles.