Anarchy

Anarchy can either be a sensible thought and political view, or else it can be the most dangerous tool in the hands of someone that is less then mentally competent. Which do you believe it is. And explain your view.

Personally as much as I'm unhappy with the way current society is spinning, anarchy would be a bad idea in my personal opinion. While the idea of anarchy is an interesting one, the idea of no repercussions for our acts, and being able to do as we please really may not be as appealing as it sounds. You'd have to take in consideration that if everyone is doing as they please, someone is eventually going to get hurt. With out a government to regulate laws of some sort, there would be at least some amount of chaos. Take the looting and pillaging after Katrina, it'd probably be some where along those lines only on a much greater scale. If there was really no sense of rule or government I'm pretty sure everything else would go down hill. With out some rules being enforced we'd have trry about food regulations, medicines, and anything else that could potentially harm us. I mean if there is no government, what rules do they really need to follow? Human decency only goes so far. I mean it's possible in a truly anarchistic society we would have to go back to bartering which may or may not be as bad. It's a lot of really unknown factors. I find it funny that a lot of people have a misconception about anarchy, the idea that if they lead the revolution to anarchy they'd have some sort of power themselves. The idea is about as pointless as trying to be the leader of an anarchist government. Lol

(For those who don't get it, anarchy is actually a society with out any sort of government or leader at all.)

Anarchy is absolute freedom. Each person is free to do as they please and is the maker of the law that guides them. Even with the most logical and reasonable people practicing its a terrible way to live. Theoretically you're free but because the fellow next to you is too and he can steal from you, hurt you, or kill you and no one will stop him or punish him. You might get a brief stet of awesome but eventually society decays. In anarchy there is no protection and without that protect you can't have science or the arts and only the strong can hope to hold valuables for any length of time and ultimately they are killed by someone else who takes their things and subjugates the rest of the people. Anarchy is tyranny of the strong. All government or lack there of is tyranny by some group. At least in the liberal democracies or oligarchies we get to have science, art, and culture.

Let's define Anarchy as the lack of government. According to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and a couple other philosophers, society starts from a pact, an agreement between the population, which gives power to a certain person, in order to establish a set of rules that everyone inside the pact must follow. Therefore, without the pact, we are on our own, no government, no state, no society. However, it is also stated that men are born good, and society turns them evil, thus, in anarchy, men is good again, and things created by competition, such as greed and hate disappear.
Finally, I think it was Socrates who said that the man was inherently gregarious, which would lead us to society again.
My point is, we can not think of anarchy as our current society without a government, that would be oversimplifying the issue.

Disclaimer:
This post is a stub, you can help LG by expanding it, etc.

Some people argue the state of nature is peaceful and men good. Hobbes argues that men are not good or peaceful. For Hobbes man is evil and will do anything to secure his needs and desires. Anarchy back at the beginning is plausible maybe. I agree with Hobbes men are vile creatures. Its like they say if you took all the money in the world and distribute it evenly and a week it'll be back in the hands of those that had it to begin with. People would eventually develop things because of our nature, someone else would want it and realize they could take it and then do so by one method or another. Your interpretation of that is based on what you think of mankind. Either you believe we're good and natural right and social contracts related to democracy, as Locke and Rousseau say, come about you think we're all evil and you agree with Marx and Hobbes.
Anarchy and the state of nature are different though. One is the beginning of history and the other is the institution of the lack of government. It wouldn't work today because of society and you can only postulate at the nature of man and what its institution in the beginning would be like.

Speaking of Marx, doesn't he say tat society changes man and it's changed by it? That would mean that even though short term anarchy is unviable, on the long run men would change in a way in which anarchy doesn't just mean utter chaos.
As for my personal opinion, anarchy is just silly, but that's most likely because I was raised in a society in which anarchy is frowned upon. Take Somalia as an example.

Drakonid wrote:

Speaking of Marx, doesn't he say tat society changes man and it's changed by it? That would mean that even though short term anarchy is unviable, on the long run men would change in a way in which anarchy doesn't just mean utter chaos.
As for my personal opinion, anarchy is just silly, but that's most likely because I was raised in a society in which anarchy is frowned upon. Take Somalia as an example.

Marx doesn't think anarchy works he doesn't even have it in his sociocultural evolution. You start at early communism. Marx says that man is industrious and changes as he develops things. We invent possession and that changes us because we want things we don't need. Society and people change in result of the improvements in the mode of production.
Your initial negative reaction is societal, your analysis there after isn't. Its a futile system. It starts great, falls apart, and then leads to government or inhalation. Those are the only logical progressions. If peace occurs during anarchy you either have people dedicated to is following personal rules that are the same and are avoiding their urges based on a mutual understanding that if they give into them anarchy becomes hell and thus they are instituting a social contract aka government. If one of them breaches that then some will band together and kill him or he will go unpunished and everything falls apart. The reason we make social contracts, the reason for society is because we are social creates and make agreements to further our interests. It comes on way or the other. Either one person or a group benefits. Rousseau most accurately points out the lies we all bought and explains why everyone in America call themselves Middleclass.
Hegel starts with anarchy I think.
Fukuyama thinks we start at anarchy and end at liberal democracy.

Anarchy is a lot like punk- some people get it, but a lot of people don't. It's also not a viable alternative to any form of government because there's always going to be an outside (or inside) force looking to gain control of those people and/or make a buck. Oh, and corporations. Those guys will whip together a new government faster than you can throw molotovs.

I insist, anarchy doesn't mean chaos. When someone abused the lack of government and, for example, stole for someone else, the rest of the society would punish him, either because of a moral cause, or because of fear and greed. Anarchy leads to autocracy.

Drakonid wrote:

I insist, anarchy doesn't mean chaos. When someone abused the lack of government and, for example, stole for someone else, the rest of the society would punish him, either because of a moral cause, or because of fear and greed. Anarchy leads to autocracy.

Moral cause is law. Its existence defeats the point of anarchy. There is no society in anarchy. Societies have laws and create forces that bind people together and defeat anarchy as well. Fear is strong enough to keep people from attempting to hurt some on who hurts another. You're assuming that in a system where the individual is supreme a person would care about another person or be willing trk with other and give up freedoms to cooperate.

Almost every one of the philosophers/sociologists/whatevs recognize the existence of natural laws(morality being somehow one of them).

No Locke says there is natural law.
Rousseau just says we're naturally good.
Hobbes says there is no moral law.
Marx says there is no moral law.
Plato and Socrates believe in inherent good.
Aristotle doesn't believe in natural law.
Only state of nature philosophers address address natural law at all.
Moral law is a completely Locke based concept and only justified by the existence of God.
Anarchy is a godless form of government based on individuals and heir absolute freedom and autonomy. Religion is a unifying establishment that can't exist in anarchy. You can have personal beliefs and that's about it. Its not reasonable to assume that any one or even a majority will obey a natural law. The existence of natural law also defeats the point of anarchy. Aside from that Locke says that only enlightened logical beings can even know natural law exists let alone follow it.

Still, assuming there is no natural law, nor anything else, people eventually form groups, which will, with time, get regulated. Anarchy is just a temporary state...

Drakonid wrote:

Still, assuming there is no natural law, nor anything else, people eventually form groups, which will, with time, get regulated. Anarchy is just a temporary state...

A state that, as things stand, will be capitalized on by someone looking for lots of power or money.

If that one person got a lot of power, it would become a monarchy.

Drakonid wrote:

Still, assuming there is no natural law, nor anything else, people eventually form groups, which will, with time, get regulated. Anarchy is just a temporary state...

Kind of my point from the start.
One person or group capitalizes on the situation to gain power and either they are successful or there is a collective backlash that leads to revolution for one form of government or another.
Interestingly there is no state in anarchy. State means there is a government, anarchy is really just a bunch of individuals roaming around. Its doubtful they'd have established boarders.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Kind of my point from the start.
One person or group capitalizes on the situation to gain power and either they are successful or there is a collective backlash that leads to revolution for one form of government or another.
Interestingly there is no state in anarchy. State means there is a government, anarchy is really just a bunch of individuals roaming around. Its doubtful they'd have established boarders.

In a state of anarchy in the US, there are already civilian militia groups in existence and survivalist groups... and, as history has shown on multiple occasions, the military is very likely to seize power. Borders aren't altogether too difficult to establish, though they might be a tad vague.

No anarchy is the lack of association. It is the government of the individual, there are no militias, there are no groups, only people. You talking about a power transition after the fall of a government. Say America never existed except for the 13 colonies, California Canada, and Mexico have formed and established government. The land between them is anarchy. The surrounding governments set their borders around that area and say that's the anarchy's borders but because there is no unified body or people with in that area they have no borders and may very well wander into another country doing whatever the hell they want, they wouldn't even set borders because that is establishment and would require broad consensus.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

No anarchy is the lack of association. It is the government of the individual, there are no militias, there are no groups, only people. You talking about a power transition after the fall of a government. Say America never existed except for the 13 colonies, California Canada, and Mexico have formed and established government. The land between them is anarchy. The surrounding governments set their borders around that area and say that's the anarchy's borders but because there is no unified body or people with in that area they have no borders and may very well wander into another country doing whatever the hell they want, they wouldn't even set borders because that is establishment and would require broad consensus.

No, it just requires enough firepower to convince people to stay off your lawn.

Ego wrote:

No, it just requires enough firepower to convince people to stay off your lawn.

What one person will have that power on a national scale without consensus from a larger group? No one.
even you with a rifle on your porch isn't effective at keeping people away in anarchy. Eventually you go to bed and they kill you in your sleep.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

What one person will have that power on a national scale without consensus from a larger group? No one.
even you with a rifle on your porch isn't effective at keeping people away in anarchy. Eventually you go to bed and they kill you in your sleep.

There's plenty of small civilian militia groups out in the boonies that'd be quick to jump at the opportunity to shoot down folks en masse near their homes even with the presence of a government. Anarchy doesn't break up smaller groups of people, you know. Just because there's no government doesn't mean people can't and won't band together or that groups that have already been established will suddenly break up.

Ego wrote:

There's plenty of small civilian militia groups out in the boonies that'd be quick to jump at the opportunity to shoot down folks en masse near their homes even with the presence of a government. Anarchy doesn't break up smaller groups of people, you know. Just because there's no government doesn't mean people can't and won't band together or that groups that have already been established will suddenly break up.

Its not anarchy when there are groups. Groups represent establishment and have laws and rules. If people form a group and are bound by regulation they are no longer in a state of anarchy.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Its not anarchy when there are groups. Groups represent establishment and have laws and rules. If people form a group and are bound by regulation they are no longer in a state of anarchy.

That's idiotic, what happens to families in a state of anarchy?

The Ottoman Empire tried to force people many people they conquered with "firepower" and look at what happened to them.

Ego wrote:

That's idiotic, what happens to families in a state of anarchy?

That's not idiotic, that's anarchy. Families are a societal thing. The only reason you think any one is important is due to societal values or some deluded idea that you have ownership over them(aka love). In short they don't exist in anarchy after a generation or two. The individual is the ruler in anarchy, the only reason to associate with anyone is to take from them or kill them.
Of course I'm arguing from the negative prospective because I don't believe in natural law or the inherent good of humanity. If you believe in that then anarchy is this sort of blissful social network with not rules and nothing ever bad happens cause you're free and good you won't kill Jimmy to take his 50" flat screen that you really want even though if you do no one will do jack shit about it or has the right to cause there are no laws or rules.
You want to see anarchy look at history. State/countries are in anarchy. There is no real international law and each state does what it thinks is best. They form alliances temporarily then turn around and attack their allies after their perceived foes are killed. The only reason that things don't completely fall apart any more like they used to is because their is a hedgemon. Hedgemons are the strongest, biggest, baddest kids on the block and force event to go in their favor. When ever a hedgemon weakens there are really big wars. I'll give you two famous examples: WWI & WWII. Britain and France fell from power, America and Germany and Russia fight over who replaces who in the world. Things have only been peaceful for as long as they have because we currently live in a unipolar world, which is unprecedented. In other words through out history there have been to hedgemons who fight intermediately but mostly keep things balanced and peaceful aside from taking shots at each other every decade or so. Since the fall of the USSR the US has owned the world and because we're a free market economy and peace is good for business we point our nukes at people, limit who gets nukes, and started making other countries free market economies so we could make money. The Us is declining now as the hedgemon, we may yet stay the most powerful country in the world but we will not be able to take on the whole world as we could have say 10-20 years ago. If we screw up and slip more than we have then eventually Europe and the US end up in a war with Russia and China with India on one side or the other. Oh, and we lose.

chowchig wrote:

The Ottoman Empire tried to force people many people they conquered with "firepower" and look at what happened to them.

Yes, but that's the Ottoman Empire. They didn't have enough firepower.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

That's not idiotic, that's anarchy. Families are a societal thing. The only reason you think any one is important is due to societal values or some deluded idea that you have ownership over them(aka love). In short they don't exist in anarchy after a generation or two. The individual is the ruler in anarchy, the only reason to associate with anyone is to take from them or kill them.
Of course I'm arguing from the negative prospective because I don't believe in natural law or the inherent good of humanity. If you believe in that then anarchy is this sort of blissful social network with not rules and nothing ever bad happens cause you're free and good you won't kill Jimmy to take his 50" flat screen that you really want even though if you do no one will do jack shit about it or has the right to cause there are no laws or rules.
You want to see anarchy look at history. State/countries are in anarchy. There is no real international law and each state does what it thinks is best. They form alliances temporarily then turn around and attack their allies after their perceived foes are killed. The only reason that things don't completely fall apart any more like they used to is because their is a hedgemon. Hedgemons are the strongest, biggest, baddest kids on the block and force event to go in their favor. When ever a hedgemon weakens there are really big wars. I'll give you two famous examples: WWI & WWII. Britain and France fell from power, America and Germany and Russia fight over who replaces who in the world. Things have only been peaceful for as long as they have because we currently live in a unipolar world, which is unprecedented. In other words through out history there have been to hedgemons who fight intermediately but mostly keep things balanced and peaceful aside from taking shots at each other every decade or so. Since the fall of the USSR the US has owned the world and because we're a free market economy and peace is good for business we point our nukes at people, limit who gets nukes, and started making other countries free market economies so we could make money. The Us is declining now as the hedgemon, we may yet stay the most powerful country in the world but we will not be able to take on the whole world as we could have say 10-20 years ago. If we screw up and slip more than we have then eventually Europe and the US end up in a war with Russia and China with India on one side or the other. Oh, and we lose.

You underestimate the power of capitalism and the natural greed of humans.

If we went to war with China, all they'd need to do is shut down all their exports to this country. They wouldn't even need to lift a finger because armies are superficial when it comes to dealing with the countries that have managed to make themselves more important.

However, I digress. People may be backstabbing assholes, but there are certain ingrained habits and values that people will cling onto for dear life. Family is one of the bigger ones. There is no state of anarchy where the entire fabric of a society, governed or otherwise, falls apart because then those people are no longer people in a state of anarchy, but livestock in an ungoverned area. Even if there was, it would not last for very long.

Ego wrote:

You underestimate the power of capitalism and the natural greed of humans.

If we went to war with China, all they'd need to do is shut down all their exports to this country. They wouldn't even need to lift a finger because armies are superficial when it comes to dealing with the countries that have managed to make themselves more important.

However, I digress. People may be backstabbing assholes, but there are certain ingrained habits and values that people will cling onto for dear life. Family is one of the bigger ones. There is no state of anarchy where the entire fabric of a society, governed or otherwise, falls apart because then those people are no longer people in a state of anarchy, but livestock in an ungoverned area. Even if there was, it would not last for very long.

No, I'm not. I study these things in detail. I'm a political science major so all I do is debate this topic.
China need the US as much as the US needs China. We're the only country that consumes their production and a ton of their factories are for American based companies. China cuts us and they'll starve. Though they're sitting on the largest foreign capital reserve they've let most of it out to help stabilize the market in this global recession. There would be armies if war started in a formal way and in that scenario China and Russia win. Army size really isn't the factor being considered, technologically the US has far more advanced military tactics and equipment. The ultimate end and the reason the US is dominate in the world is we can stop nukes. We have superior missile defenses compared to the rest of the world and better nukes, aside from that we have other countries nukes could frame them for things. If the war goes nuclear we might win, but even then Russia has some missile defense and a ton of nukes.

No, you're bias. You were raised to think family is important and are part of society that heralds family as important. Ultimately you have to look at people that are outside of social bindings. A true member of an anarchy would act more akin with an animal or some one like Son Of Sam or Zodiac. Highly intellectual people that realize society is a construct and completely fake. In true anarchy there is no society. There is no association. People are livestock more in this system than in the idealistic on we're talking about. In anarchy they would at least be free, even if souly driven by animalistic passions, they would be uninfluenced by market pressures and able to think clearly and for themselves.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

No, I'm not. I study these things in detail. I'm a political science major so all I do is debate this topic.
China need the US as much as the US needs China. We're the only country that consumes their production and a ton of their factories are for American based companies. China cuts us and they'll starve. Though they're sitting on the largest foreign capital reserve they've let most of it out to help stabilize the market in this global recession. There would be armies if war started in a formal way and in that scenario China and Russia win. Army size really isn't the factor being considered, technologically the US has far more advanced military tactics and equipment. The ultimate end and the reason the US is dominate in the world is we can stop nukes. We have superior missile defenses compared to the rest of the world and better nukes, aside from that we have other countries nukes could frame them for things. If the war goes nuclear we might win, but even then Russia has some missile defense and a ton of nukes.

No, you're bias. You were raised to think family is important and are part of society that heralds family as important. Ultimately you have to look at people that are outside of social bindings. A true member of an anarchy would act more akin with an animal or some one like Son Of Sam or Zodiac. Highly intellectual people that realize society is a construct and completely fake. In true anarchy there is no society. There is no association. People are livestock more in this system than in the idealistic on we're talking about. In anarchy they would at least be free, even if souly driven by animalistic passions, they would be uninfluenced by market pressures and able to think clearly and for themselves.

Russia has more nukes and more ways to deploy them/more launch areas.

And no, family is something pretty normal in the animal kingdom. You can never have the anarchy you're talking about because most people are content to live their lives like sheep guided by a select few. And you know what? That's perfectly fine. What happens to animals on a farm when the farmers suddenly vanish without a trace? They starve because they can't think for themselves anyway. In short, if you've got a herd of livestock now, they're not going to become self-governing individuals just because the hand that feeds them and pushes them in a certain direction isn't there anymore.

Actually, you'd be very hard-pressed to convince people to not form some sort of group or government, some way to keep things in order.

Ego wrote:

Russia has more nukes and more ways to deploy them/more launch areas.

And no, family is something pretty normal in the animal kingdom. You can never have the anarchy you're talking about because most people are content to live their lives like sheep guided by a select few. And you know what? That's perfectly fine. What happens to animals on a farm when the farmers suddenly vanish without a trace? They starve because they can't think for themselves anyway. In short, if you've got a herd of livestock now, they're not going to become self-governing individuals just because the hand that feeds them and pushes them in a certain direction isn't there anymore.

Actually, you'd be very hard-pressed to convince people to not form some sort of group or government, some way to keep things in order.

Russia doesn't have that many working launch capabilities, officially owned by the government. The private interest that rule Russia could have any thing. Family is only temporary in most other species, like mates. Its all short lived and in crisis falls apart, with mothers eating children and fathers killing mothers, ect.
Only sheep have the problem of needing to form groups. That's not alright. The government is not a provider or benevolent. Its a terrible dangerous thing that is constantly being exploited and used by special interest and only when the societies that create them are educated, civil minded, and constantly active do they avoid its complete corruption. People must think, people must not be sheep. The cycle must be broken. There are many that would adapt in the event of the removal of the government, tons more would die.The race would be better off for it.
My version of anarchy is anarchy at its ideal, simple as that. Not all people need a government or a group to impose order, they do it themselves.

Anarchy is a double edged sword, there's no corrupt government to brainwash us but there are no restrictions to what people can do which could and most certainly would lead to violence

Edit: also "governments" would inevitably pop up again due to people's drive toward power

I would rather get things done than have absolute freedom

There are only a few scenarios where Anarchism could work.

Living in Siberia.
Living in a small island nation without a dictator.
Living 150 years ago in the west.

Anarchy can't work because everyone will have to be on guard their whole life. You can be killed at any moment. People can steal your stuff. Anything they want.

I believe that anarchy won't exist because 99.9% of the time there has to be a leader.
I believe a well developed society has to have rules established in our to function properly.
If anarchy would be introduced into society it would be complete chaos.
It would practically be survival of the fittest.