An Anarchist Society Exist and Function
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe that one can, because it is open to many structures, and the main factor would be that the societal order would be left up to the people. An anarchist society naturally would incur a self sufficient society, because it would become a matter of survival without any overbearing government. People would work on their own and live much to their own accord, or they might even band together to create a communal structure. The doctrine is actually highly structured, but it focuses on a non-hierarchal structure rather than modern governments which are mostly hierarchies. Non-Hierarchal structures themselves are functional, they just function differently.
In the case of justice, I would have to assume a sort of self defense of vigilante-esque type of community might develop. Without laws, there are no courts, therefore no official punishments. However, even in primitive societies, which were on occasion anarchist in nature, threats to the community can be identified and dealt with accordingly, as the community would decide or perhaps individual depending on which form of anarchy the community took form of. Currency would lend itself more towards trade, often between goods and other goods or goods to labor notes, particularly a prime property of "Mutualist" Anarchy. Or as with Anarcho-Syndicalism, currency and trade would be dealt among syndicates. Diplomatic relations would have to be dealt similarly, as in older trade it was not uncommon for straight goods to goods trading. Anarchy attains that there is no ruler or government. however it's not out of the question to say that particularly for foreign relations there cant be a representation individual. Foreign relations would not be terribly important to Individualist Anarchic societies, and could probably only work in a communal style anarchist community. The community itself would function, but perhaps either not be interested in foreign relations or could be communal about the relations.
John55555 forfeited this round.
Anarchist societies are for the most part based around a concept of "voluntary action". Whether that voluntary action take the form of individual pursuit, religious charity, syndicate competition, or communal sharing is left up to the form of anarchy. Anarchy in itself, though seeming blunt and unorganized at a glance, is actually a highly structured doctrine that runs its own sort of spectrum in itself. There is no government people would feel inclined to rebel against, and if you disagree with one system, then you go on about your business in another sect of anarchy.
Addressing law, I once again point out the concept that a society working as a singular system can point out a threat, and work towards absolving that threat harmoniously. If not just that, on a lower level vigilante activity (though sometimes discredited) would also be possible. In an anarchist society however, there would also be less of a motive to commit what we would usually consider criminal acts (unless its a more down to human personal matter). For example, the common thief. Rather than resorting to thievery, in the sect of anarchy known simply as communist anarchy would very happily provide them with whatever it was they so desired. Communist Anarchy centers around a united concept of in all essence "sharing". However on a more organized and societal level. Drugs? Prostitution? There would be no laws per say, but rather it would be up to the responsibility of the person whether to delve in such activities.
Anarchy actually to some proportion owes its origins to more moral and religious figures as well. In the time when anarchy was beginning to develop an actual doctrine, religious anarchy formed as a proposed way for people to loose secular ties and become closer to God. At an anarchic level, humanity is tested morally and responsibly, and in a way naturally nurtures maturity.
John55555 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.