\tGovernment always exists in some form by definition People tend to argue about whether anarchy would work or lead to chaos. I'm here to say that's the wrong debate. The right debate is whether anarchy is even possible. I am arguing that government always exists by definition. Government is an entity with a monopoly on the use of force over a given area. Even if each household is making its own rules and enforcing them over its own area those are governments. And for all practical purposes the people in each of these households will have to interact with each other and find some way of resolving disagreements. These resolutions and what ever parties are involved in forming the resolutions naturally is government in the first place and in time evolves into a more formalized form of government. So is it possible? You could say the Moon is an anarchy since nobody lives there. But anywhere people live there is government. Every proposal for "Anarchy" involves concepts like "social defense", "voluntary organization" and a convoluted set of mental gymnastics to explain why it doesn't count as government. Typically they are just proposing very decentralized governments run either by federations starting locally with democratic councils (the left-wing 'anarchy') this is identical to council communism in all but name or run by businesses and contractual agreements between them (so-called 'anarcho-capitalism') which is just federated plutocracy. If you really think you've got the right idea for the right system of organization for society as a whole that's fine, but don't beat around the bush and call it "anarchy". It's disturbing that even credentialed and celebrated intellectuals such as Chompsky will use the label when their ideas quite clearly amount to proposals for different systems of government rather than its abolition. One group of anarchists may legitimately be called anarchists, anarchopacifists. They want no use of force anywhere whatsoever and recognize that that means no government. But let's face it even in a wonderfully enlightened world where the vast, vast majority of people are peaceful and refrain from using force against each other occasionally there will be a few bad apples and we shouldn't just sit there and take it (which is what an anarchopacifist would do or they would try singing protest songs and offering flowers of love to try to appease the attackers) and if we don't and won't then there is a government. \n\n\nfurthermore the idea that anarchy would be viable/possible relies on the notion that if left to their devices humans would do good things, they wouldn't, if that was so there would be no laws. The hundreds of thousands of years before simple forms of government existed were anarchy; chaos that is, there was no real progress and tribes killed each other and there was no real conscious ethical deliberation on things. Also, if government is anything that exercises force over a particular area is taken in its literal sense then there has never nor ever will be any anarchy, humans will always form hierarchical structures when left to their own devices. Tribes would always have a leader or leaders that make decisions, and each tribe would loosely govern or exert force on a certain area. \nso what do you think? is anarchy achievable? \n
No, it really isn't. There's always going to be a best-prepared group of people waiting for the right time to move in (aka immediately following revolutions or similar). Look at ISIS in Iraq and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
I think it could be temporarily achieved but not sustained, because it would be inevitable that someone with enough resources and leadership qualities would attempt (potentially successfully) to invent a new form of government, in the vacuum that would be created by removing the current ones. And of course, there is more than one person with enough resources and advantageous position to attempt, so there would be clashing until someone emerges victorious. Ideas are bulletproof, but humans aren't. Those who don't get put down are the ones who get to keep thinking, so consider the likely frame of reference that would result from being one of the spared. People are also prone to "power thirst." Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. But perhaps... if we could educate all the world's children to embrace the values of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility/accountability, while not nullifying compassion for those less fortunate... idk, in an ideal scenario, it could potentially work... but you'd have to construct a system with invulnerable integrity, so that it could not be abused, and everyone would have to embrace the duty to protect it, and remain eternally vigilant in its guard. And wouldn't that count as "government" on some level? Isn't that pretty much the core ideal that formed the foundation of the U.S.? The problems came when people were able to exploit the verbiage of the system, and confidence-tricking (aka "conning") those responsible for its defense. I think it could be "achieved," but i don't think it would be sustainable. But, you know... if everyone would govern themselves appropriately, i suppose it "could" hypothetically work... but how many people are prepared to put that much faith and trust in armed total strangers? Like Gandhi said: the world will only know peace when we can all love each other, despite any differences. If everyone loved each other, anarchy could work. I just don't have nearly as much strength of faith in humanity as Gandhi strove for.
Temporarily. But eventually a system will develop. Minarchy on the other hand would be sustainable, and would appease all but the most hardcore anarchists. Allowing a government for only one purpose, the protection of freedoms. Thats it, they have no say over anything, all they can do is protect freedom. One could argue that power grabs would be made, because they would. Its at this point people bring up the non-aggression principle, which in my opinion cannot under any circumstance, uphold liberty. Should in this theoretical minarchy, a government member get handsy, instead of peaceful protests, publically execute them. This would keep the others in line, and assure that anyone who joins the Minarchist government, does it over a love for freedom and desire to upkeep it. Why execute instead of peacefully protest? Because there is no reason to pay a protest any mind unless it is absolutely massive (as in its ongoing upsets day to day activities), and we all know uniting more than a handful of people for a good cause is nigh impossible, let alone millions. So if corruption rears its head, unless everyone and their grandma is protesting, there is no reasom to pay them any mind, because they pose no threat. Minarchy, in my opinion, is the only thing even remotely close to true anarchy that is sustainable.
your new to GC but i can already tell people are going to like you , because i like you. thought out responses minus personal attacks and fallacies. in philosophy they would probably say the state of anarchy is subjective , but even in the wild , lets say lions. they have a hierarchy. i think just about every species with some conceivable conscious has an order to how they do things amongst there groups, and we humans are no exception to the rule.
Yes, anarchy capitalism. anarchy mixed with free markets is a better definition. in order to establish a sustainable absence of a monopoly on a given (stolen) area, we need to establish laws that are inherent. That's where natural laws come in life liberty and private property. Every right is a form of private property, starting of course with oneself. A natural right is a right that can be exercised by every living person at the exact same time without infringing on another's natural rights. Then there is NAP, non aggressive principle. Deadly force is only acceptable in self defense. So I say yes if we follow anocap, nap, which allows anarchy and all to coexist on private property. bat mobile
I'll rephrase the question for you: "Is it possible to solve problems without using violence?" The answer is yes.
not on a grand scale with a population of 300 million. Too many people out there needing to be taken care of. but on a smaller state by state scale i wouldn't see why not.
Weather or not "anarchy" is possible depends on a lot of definition Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
if each one taught one, I think education would go a looong way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlNnU39I2hA Anything Larken Rose says makes you an instant domestic bad guy, so be warned. Gil Scott-Heron on "The Revolution won't be televised":
From my understanding, governments can only infringe upon freedoms. How would this government operate and recieve funding/revenue? Would this government comply with the non-aggression principle?
"until" ? So he was no longer racist after he learned that lesson? Funny, racism isn't a problem of mine. I could potentially be more wise than Gandhi.
It's impossible for me to tell you if a dead man was racist after he had someone belittle him based on his own. From what I understand he believed that the whites who lived in Southern Africa, were essentially better, smarter, more deserving individuals than the indigenous people of Africa, who he regarded as inferior. My point wasn't necessarily to imply that he didn't learn his lesson- merely to convey the fact that even people who are icons of peace movements around the world, are nothing more than mere humans themselves. They're all just as flawed, with arbitrary actions and contradictory personal beliefs. As for you being potentially more wise than Gandhi... I said he was racist, not that he wasn't enlightened. Ego's usually the opposite direction of enlightenment. Just saying.
I find it hard to believe that he was "racist," but i didn't know him. I think what is more important is whether he learned his lesson or not... which you don't seem to have an answer for. I would have to estimate that, from what i've read of what are allegedly his words, he probably was not quite "racist." But no, we are not all equally flawed, though we are all fallible and human. Some people are much more flawed than others. Whether he was an "icon" is irrelevant to me; i merely perceive and value the meaning behind what i'm told were his words. I attribute those words and meanings to him, but what is important is the meanings, not the person. I feel it would be dishonest to avoid attribution when i quote someone, when the source is known (correct or otherwise). If you want to talk about "egos," let's talk about yours: what purpose does it serve to attack the character of a dead man, whose wisdom is still valid today? I'll quote him again: "Speak only if it improves upon the silence." -Gandhi It doesn't indicate egotism if i merely entertain the possibility that i did not suffer the same flaw as someone who is widely regarded as a wise man. He also said something about how having a sense of humor kept him from committing suicide; another sentiment i share. Although lately, it seems woefully insufficient.
I watched the L.A. riots for 3 days. Yes, anarchy is very achieveable. Just piss the people off and they will rebel.