Thread: Is anarchy a good idea? How could it work?

Originally Posted by FryingMan

If you define true anarchy as 100% "every person for themselves," it's not sustainable because people will always form groups (government, basically) for protection and for "justice" from other people out to dominate and destroy.

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

Originally Posted by cmind

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

Here's the first listing from the O.E.D., in case Wikipedia fails to stand up to scrutiny:

1a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

1b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implications of disorder)

Not to question the authority of the anarchists you've heard speak, but I think these definitions might represent the understood condition of anarchy.

Also, to the OP, these definitions, along with my own understanding of anarchy, sort of imply that town meetings would not exist in an anarchist community. Every man really would be for himself, so no one would be willing to form groups, have meetings, or enforce the will of any majority on another individual. So I guess that might mean that true anarchy would not work, Somalia being an excellent example of what happens when it reigns.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Here's the first listing from the O.E.D., in case Wikipedia fails to stand up to scrutiny:

Why are you using a dictionary definition? If you want to examine the beliefs of anarchists, you need to use their definitions. Otherwise, who exactly are you arguing with?

I want to be clear on this point, because at least two people in this thread missed it:

It's ok to disagree with the political philosophy itself, but not on definitions. Definitions must be agreed upon before any real discussion can take place. Now, you can go right ahead and define anarchy as <insert bad things> if you want. But that's not what an anarchist means when they use the word. So you're arguing against a position that no one holds.

^^ Sorry; when you wrote this, I thought you were looking for where such a definition might come from:

Originally Posted by cmind

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

So posting a definition from an authority that most of the world tends to accept or at least respect seemed appropriate, just to show that others do indeed define anarchy in an "every man for himself" light, in spite of the fact that you were unaware of it. Generally, I think, established definitions of words tend to have something to do with the words. I hadn't realized that the stuff anarchists tell you takes precedence over accepted definitions. I guess that's okay, as long as you do not talk to people outside their circle about anarchy.

I made no mention of "examining the beliefs" of anarchists; I'm not sure where you got that from, as I don't think the thread was doing that either. Also, I wasn't arguing about anything, just presenting a definition from a better source than Wikipedia, so I guess I wasn't arguing with anyone.