Anarchy vs. an Ordered Government

[Tycoon101]

I'm curious, because it seems that there are a few Anarchists amidst us, and I'm wondering about what they think about governments. Do we need them? Are they just getting in the way? Can they be improved, or are they hopeless?

Let's discuss. And a poll is coming VERY soon!

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Just two seconds ago I asked someone to open a thread about this.


I still don't get how anarchy is even possible. Anarchy means that there is no government and no authority. Yet who can enforce anarchy but a type of government? No one has yet answered this question.

Edit: I want a very small government thats main if not sole purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens. Basically I think the government that is outlined in the original US constitution + bill of rights is about the best there ever was.

 

[Tycoon101]

Just two seconds ago I asked someone to open a thread about this.


I still don't get how anarchy is even possible. Anarchy means that there is no government and no authority. Yet who can enforce anarchy but a type of government? No one has yet answered this question.

Anarchy is the lack of unification, it promotes self expression and freedom. Nothing is illegal, thus crime and disorder will reign.

But that's how I view it.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Just two seconds ago I asked someone to open a thread about this.

How long until tommy finds this thread and takes it over? It will become his firstborn child soon, I suspect.

 

[mdwh]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but my biggest problem with "Anarchy" is not that there is no state, but on the contrary, there is some kind of "state" that controls everything people do, for example, preventing me from taking up employment, offering someone a job, or conducting private trade. It is put forward as an economic system, yet if we look at a scale with 100% socialism on the one extreme, and 100% laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand, anarchy ironically ends up being modelled on the former, when I'd consider the latter extreme to be the side without state control.

 

[King Flevance]

Crap I voted other instead of small government with enough control. But I will clarify.

@Fugitive Anarchy is the government state your in when a rebellion happens. So the people declare an Anarchy state. However, eventually, the people will be inclined to form a new government, thus leaving anarchy. No ruler can really declare Anarchy as what would happen is he is thereby forfeighting rulership and a new person will soon step up to the ununified country to lead them. Constant Anarchy is unrealistic. People are too proud to stand for it.

 

[tomsnowman123]

How long until tommy finds this thread and takes it over? It will become his firstborn child soon, I suspect.

Hooray! A thread with a potential for true greatness. Thank you Tycoon101 (btw, love your location ).

I'm curious, because it seems that there are a few Anarchists amidst us, and I'm wondering about what they think about governments. Do we need them? Are they just getting in the way? Can they be improved, or are they hopeless?

Let's discuss. And a poll is coming VERY soon!

First off, there are many, many different forms of anarchy out there. Just wanted to clear that up, as I support only a ceratin form.

Governments are uneccesary and inherently destructive and exploitative to humans and the enviroment. They restrict and destroy human freedom, and we are better without them. They are hopeless, to answer your question, as they will always be a system of control. Having said that, they can be improved. For example, I know that a green/eco-anarchy is not goingo to happen over night, so I will vote Green Party in politics, as they have some OK ideas in terms of our country and politics. To me, it's like choosing between Republicans and Democrats (mega-crap) and Green Party (some good ideals, but ultimately against anrchy).

I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I'll wait for a few more posts.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It seems that we can't even come up with a definition of anarchy that everyone agrees with.

The definition I agree with is:

Absence of any form of political authority.

Edit: @tomsnowman123
You still haven't answered my question:

Anarchy means that there is no government and no authority. Yet who can enforce anarchy but a type of government?

 

[Mastreditr111]

I don't think a state of no government is sustainable for long. It would mean no law or order, and people would get sick of crime and death soon enough, then try to found a new government. Not even a matter of pride, as King Flevance said, but for self-preservation. I support minimal government, with enough jurisdiction to maintain public systems like education, transportation, public safety, (police, EMT's, and fire services) and the military. Nothing beyond that, nor below, is acceptable to me.

 

[Tycoon101]

Thank you Tycoon101 (btw, love your location ).
.

As do I. I actually made this thread as a veiled attempt to learn your viewpoint, but that's irrelevant at the moment.

First off, there are many, many different forms of anarchy out there. Just wanted to clear that up, as I support only a ceratin form.

Governments are uneccesary and inherently destructive and exploitative to humans and the enviroment. They restrict and destroy human freedom, and we are better without them. They are hopeless, to answer your question, as they will always be a system of control. Having said that, they can be improved. For example, I know that a green/eco-anarchy is not goingo to happen over night, so I will vote Green Party in politics, as they have some OK ideas in terms of our country and politics. To me, it's like choosing between Republicans and Democrats (mega-crap) and Green Party (some good ideals, but ultimately against anrchy).

I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I'll wait for a few more posts.

I agree with the idea that they are destructive in a sense, but freedom leads to criminal actions, things that I hate above all else.

So Governments are hopeless as a whole? Why can't there be a very Liberal government that only deals with foreign affairs and crime, but allows the populous to do whatever it wishes?

It's great that you have a party, no matter how small, to vote for. I respect your decision to vote independantly from the major parties.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Edit: @tomsnowman123
You still haven't answered my question:

When it is accepted as the best way of life, people will follow it. Not everybody ever will, but there are certain things in socety right now that are accepted as ways of life, the same could be done with a certain type of anarchy. Granted, a true anarchy hasn't really been implemented. Some people claim that Somalia is, although I think that is a little unfair, as there are militant groups with control seeking to gain more.

 

[Tycoon101]

I don't think a state of no government is sustainable for long. It would mean no law or order, and people would get sick of crime and death soon enough, then try to found a new government. Not even a matter of pride, as King Flevance said, but for self-preservation. I support minimal government, with enough jurisdiction to maintain public systems like education, transportation, public safety, (police, EMT's, and fire services) and the military. Nothing beyond that, nor below, is acceptable to me.

Have you ever read "Lord Of The Flies"? That is an excellent book that hows how a government is needed to prevent the citizens from going insan. I highly reccomend it.

And I agree with self-preservation being a reason to have a government.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Somalia isn't anarchy, its more like lots of little countries, unrecognized, holding a bloodbath. Overall, noone is in control, but there is still order on a small scale.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Have you ever read "Lord Of The Flies"? That is an excellent book that hows how a government is needed to prevent the citizens from going insan. I highly reccomend it.

And I agree with self-preservation being a reason to have a government.

Yep. Very good book. However I would also recommend "1984" or "Brave New World" just to highlight the dangers of the other end of the spectrum.

 

[tomsnowman123]

So Governments are hopeless as a whole? Why can't there be a very Liberal government that only deals with foreign affairs and crime, but allows the populous to do whatever it wishes?

At that point, we mine as well go all the way. Secondly, I really don't believe in globalization and communicating in a global sense, unless it can be done with eco-villages or something. And a government that is dealing with foreign affairs and crime is excercizing some control in order to accomplish those objectives.

And I sincerely thank you for respecting my opinion. Even though I disagree with yours, I will respect it.

Edit:

Yep. Very good book. However I would also recommend "1984" or "Brave New World" just to highlight the dangers of the other end of the spectrum.

Excellent books that I have read in the past couple months illustrating what can occur with an authoritarian power, We is along the same lines.

 

[Tycoon101]

When it is accepted as the best way of life, people will follow it. Not everybody ever will, but there are certain things in socety right now that are accepted as ways of life, the same could be done with a certain type of anarchy. Granted, a true anarchy hasn't really been implemented. Some people claim that Somalia is, although I think that is a little unfair, as there are militant groups with control seeking to gain more.

But that's a problem with anarchy, people are greedy IMHO. We want power. If you let there be no government then militant groups could enforce their laws on the people, breaking the anarchistic society. It is a very dangerous proposal, and would need cooperation amongst the populous to survive, but that would create a people's government and destroy the Anarchy.

 

[tomsnowman123]

It is a very dangerous proposal, and would need cooperation amongst the populous to survive, but that would create a people's government and destroy the Anarchy.

I do not believe that cooperation would inherently create some form of orginiztional government, merely people who agree and lead the same lifestyle.

 

[Mastreditr111]

I would love a government with no control (i.e. no government) but in practice it won't happen. My views, I think, are as close as we will get. The world has to recognize greed and other human flaws to work, and I think minimal, but existant, government will do just that.

 

[Tycoon101]

At that point, we mine as well go all the way. Secondly, I really don't believe in globalization and communicating in a global sense, unless it can be done with eco-villages or something. And a government that is dealing with foreign affairs and crime is excercizing some control in order to accomplish those objectives.

I see... Hmm... Well the eco-villages that you talk of would just be run by the people then, because you don't want to talk with the corrupted governments. I see. So ANY exercising of control upon ANY aspects of a country is bad. Then a self-sufficient village that is communal woud have no need for currecy?

And I sincerely thank you for respecting my opinion. Even though I disagree with yours, I will respect it.

Thank you.

 

[Mastreditr111]

Self-sufficient villiage? I know you advocate a simpler lifestyle, but I can't see a single villiage being self-sufficient at any higher than medieval standards of living.