Thread: Anarchy

It is an impossible state of mankind. Without government, gangs rise up immediately and become governments. The only thing to stop the gangs from rising up and becoming governments is a government. Anarchy is impossible.

Anarchism is a beatiful idea and many at some point in the future be enirely possible, however, highly unlikely.
The odd thing is, orthodox anarchism rejects taking part in government in any way, so change thorugh reform is ruled out.
Orthdox anarchists also reject the idea of violent revolution. I'm confused as to how they would ever change the system?

Anarchism gave way to more practical systems such as socialism when people realised that it was too idealistic and rather un-realistic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is an impossible state of mankind. Without government, gangs rise up immediately and become governments. The only thing to stop the gangs from rising up and becoming governments is a government. Anarchy is impossible.

Whats stopping from the government turning into a gang however? Thats the problem countries always have. You go to little and you screwed, and if you go to much its even worse.

The way I see it though, its far worse to have to much government, than not enough. I would like to see government that keeps to the essentials. Protection, and things like upkeeping roads are the kind of stuff I think they should be doing. Other than that they should try to stay out of everything else. Especially when it comes to our economy. They shouldn't be giving money to anyone, and they shouldn't be trying to control or even influance anything to do with our money. The only thing they should even think about doing in the market place is stopping out right criminal activities such stealing, scamming and cheating people.

You don't want social secuirty?
What about education/ Do you want the government to still provide education? Don't you want any form of healthcare? What about when you can't get a job because you become mentally ill, you want the government to help you out in your time of need? Or do you want them to adopt a philosophy of "rugged individualism"?

Gah NO! I hate social secuirty! I hate it with a passion. It stealing, plain and simple. The government steals my money, they give it to someone else. What are we living in a socialist government now? The people who put in social secuirty should of been shot. What is worse is that the government spends the money like there is no tomorrow, so I know for a fact I will not get any of the money I put in. And if by some miracle there is something left its going to be a tiny fraction of what I could earn using the money myself. So no, I do not want social secuirty, I don't want anything to do with, its a scam, pure and simple. Thank you for pointing out the best example of how large government sucks horribly.

Healthcare, NO! I don't want government in healthcare, government always makes thing worse. Get them away!

Welfare, NO! Stop wasting all our money on all the stupid welfare programs which don't do crap. If something happens to you, thats up to the community to respond to. Family can help a lot in cases like that, and there are many private groups that will work with you. I do believe people should be able to get help, but charities nearly always do better than government. So instead of having the government take our tax dollars, people can give to charities. You might think that wont happen but people still give even with our insane tax rates. What will happen if we were paying a fraction of what we are now? What if we payed something like 5% of our income? Then we would have far more money to give to charities.

As for education, our countries education sucks horribly. Seriously, its a real joke in some areas, especially poor communities. It obviously needs some major changes. Education can still be done privately. Now on this issue, I am a little more open but its something that really needs to be talked about. We can't just leave it how it is however, and throwing more money at it doesn't solve anything when government only wastes it.

UM is right, there will always be stronger people that will try and subject the weak. Look at the few centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, regional warlords took control of very small territories which then turned into kingdoms which in turn became the western europeen countries that we know today. Also, people will always band together for mutual support (ressources, defense, trade, infrastructure), and where people band together, a social hierarchy will be formed. The only possible way for anarchy to work is if everyone accepted to live at the subsistence/hunter-gatherer level (which even then consists of a small tribal hierarchy centered on a single leader), but there's a reason our ancestors abandonned that millenia ago. Lastly, if communism won't work, then there's no way in hell that anarchy will...

I was too bland with what my views are. The book I posted is about COMMUNIST Anarchism.

So health care, and everything, is all free, along with everything else. But only if you did your role in society. Also, if someone tries to start a government, if every one ignores them, they have no power. All governments derive their power from the people.

Also, Communism can work. Its never been tried.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Also, Communism can work. Its never been tried.

I wish... It can work on a small scale or in the short term, but man as a species is not advanced enough to forego personal gain in favor of the community.

Intersting site you have there i will go back and read it later but as i understand it anarchism is chaous or the lack of leadership and government.

At some point Anarchism was used alot in spain during the civil war apparently, other then that i dont know much about it except that today it is "anarchy" in somalia it has no government taht controls the country and the country is not really united as a country, rather by many war lords who make their own form of government over whatever they can catpure.

Eventually like universal mind says a gange will evolve into a government and that will defeat the purpouse.

This happend in Somalia ofcourse if you listened to the news recently, a gang or militia took over a rater large part of the country.

anarcho-primitivism is rad. Foragers, the original affluent society, existed in anarchy for much longer than these bullshit days of hierarchy, governemnt and "civilization"

Forager Revolution - Hunt Gather Destroy

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Intersting site you have there i will go back and read it later but as i understand it anarchism is chaous or the lack of leadership and government.

Governments create disorder. You could say that Anarchy IS order. Production could be controlled by everyone, working together and organizing to make everyone happy. With out capitalism, we would all have a common goal. And we would work together, to achieve those goals.

The problem with anarchy, as the wigged philosophers of the early U.S. pointed out, is that people are not saints. When one person or group abuses another, there is a violation of the freedom that is pure anarchy. Without a mediator of legal disputes, such as a government, anarchy quickly degenerates into a contest to see which person or group can seize power over the others, and tyranny is the inevitable result, a perversion of what governments should truly be.

A government is not a 'necessary evil,' but a voluntary grant of authority to those whom the people trust to protect their freedoms by the force of law. Unfortunately, people are lazy and vindictive, and even republics are eventually swept away by the tyranny of the majority. Eventually, the purpose of government becomes so distorted that we can't remember why we created it in the first place, or how to fix it.

Originally Posted by UM

Without government, gangs rise up immediately and become governments. The only thing to stop the gangs from rising up and becoming governments is a government.

double speak. You don't need a government to stop a government unless you want to fight fire, with fire. The way you stop government is to prevent one. Not create one.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Anarchism is a beatiful idea and many at some point in the future be enirely possible, however, highly unlikely.
The odd thing is, orthodox anarchism rejects taking part in government in any way, so change thorugh reform is ruled out.
Orthdox anarchists also reject the idea of violent revolution. I'm confused as to how they would ever change the system?

simple, they don't

there are two types of anarchists - one who wants to spread chaos and terror and then use as a means of control, such as creating anarchy before creating communism or dictarship

the other type of anarchist wants to spread absolute peace - because in an absolutely peaceful society there is no need for a government to tell people right from wrong - everyone 'naturally' agrees on it without needing a legal document

obviously the first kind of anarchy is dangerous to any civilized society

and the second kind of anarchy is virtually impossible - which is why those anarchists don't try to bring about the anarchy they believe in. That and, a revolution of any kind requires leadership, and in anarchy no leads no one. a lot of these anarchists actually do believe in a higher power, or a higher authority above man or any man made government - a higher power like heaven or God. thus they view heaven as a state of anarchy since it has no need for a human government

this type of anarchy should be called something else since the word anarchy is not attached to thoughts of peace

the first kind of anarchy basically means "chaos", where as the second kind means "no human government".

Originally Posted by Mystic7

double speak. You don't need a government to stop a government unless you want to fight fire, with fire. The way you stop government is to prevent one. Not create one.

That is not double speak. Governments do prevent other governments from rising up under them.

What kind of body do you think could prevent gangs from becoming governments? Seriously, what kind of organization of people could do that, other than a government?

An organization of people like me. Who don't put up with your shit.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

An organization of people like me. Who don't put up with your shit.

Oh my... *Gets out the popcorn*

haha I got a tad impatient at the time.

I don't see a single thing anyone has mentioned against anarchy that isn't already going on in full effect.

juroara, you just over simplifired and incocrreclty categorzied anarchist schools of thought.
I suggest you do a little research.

Anarchist is another useless categorization of a label that gets the discussion absolutely no-where.

Originally Posted by imran_p

juroara, you just over simplifired and incocrreclty categorzied anarchist schools of thought.
I suggest you do a little research.

??

I was an anarchist myself, I've yet to meet any other kinds

You were not an anarchist if you're following the definition you gave.

Anarchism means no one's on top, the world is controlled by free enterprise, everything is done through supply and demand, it means basically that the citizens legitimize everything, not just their leader or constitution that decides the legitimized policy. With anarchy, there is no set policy, its the free market at it's highest potential because no one can say one can't do something due to the law, everything must be compromised so all parties are in agreement. No one's hand is forced, unless of course its literally forced.

If peaceful anarchy is impossible, and this view is widely held by those who want anarchy, then the allure of anarchy must be that the price of government is greater than the cost of anarchy. Is this the consensus of anarchy supporters, or did I miss something?

If it is, that would be a very difficult position to hold.