Anarchism is a fantasy. And that is all it will ever remain. Humans naturally need someone to lead them, as do the majority of animals. Close to all species develop, perhaps unintentionally, some form of hierarchy. Yeah, you may want everyone to be equal, but democracy is as ethically equal as it comes. I'd also assume that the majority of people would prefer some form of security; and no matter how many times an anarchist tries to explain how there will be no need for security - I will not believe it. I just cannot see myself living contently in an anarchist society. I've heard people claim that an anarchist society would be paradisiac and utopian, but how can a society with no restrictions be so? You may complain about laws, the police and the government, but they are here to protect you and most of the time have your best interests in mind. It's a nice thought, but anarchism will not work until we as humans can learn to live in harmony with one another.
I spoke with an anarchist once at my campus and of course he gave me the speech of the problems of the world such as American military imperialism, regressing effects of religion, sexism developed from the Cult of Domesticity, racism, greed of a post Jacksonian view of society, lack of gun regulation leading to mindless shooting sprees, lack of good mental health care, overpopulated prisons, ect.
However, his solution to all of that is in a way was to simply destroy all of the current establishments. I had wished that I asked him this question at the time when he said it "ok, after the reboot has occurred, after the armed revolution has won, after all the corrupt politicians are gone, and everyone is reduced to rubble then what? What is your plan after the problem has been fixed? Where is the better society that was promised?" To me this is equivalent of committing suicide just because you have a broken arm. Yes society sucks but at the same time its the only one we know of at the moment.
Anarchy is bad because without government we would have pretty much nothing, no services to our country, state or our community. Anyone could do anything and get away with it because we wouldn't have laws!!
More specifically, a state of Anarchy is defined as one without any government. Citizens may band together for various purposes, but there is no common government (and, thus, no law).
Given the rather self-centered and greedy natural character of human beings (particularly in large concentrations), any situation without some sort of overall control or law quickly degenerates into violence. Human beings have proven themselves to be unable to live together without some sort of master authority (with enforcement powers). No human society lives in anarchy - even the smallest and most primitive tribes have some sort of authority structure, which is government by another name.
As to why Anarchy is bad, ask yourself this: if you could do whatever you wanted to, with no consequences to you from a "higher" authority (e.G. You could hit someone, and while they might hit you back, no police officer would intervene, and no one would be charged with a crime), what would you do? Now, how would the world be if everyone could do whatever they wanted to anytime?
Anarchism can work only in a world of peace. But peace isnt smth humans are born with. Peace is learnt through education , that all democratic states provide to the citizens for the citizens. Anarchism crashes all values of the state , thus it crashes the educational system as well. It would take only a second and an unlike event would bring the world to ultimate chaos ( killing , raping , all sort of these things , from which the state protects you in an extent.)
I am aware that anarchy has rules, people are expected to behave, etc. but the thing is, if one person would do a act considered "evil" all of the system they created would turn into complete anarchy (chaos)
everyone is working and the community is functioning well, one greedy person steals. Someone finds this unfair and steals back. It doesnt take long for this to become a full scale war involving innocents.
In the end...Anarchy.
Humans are aggressive by nature and I'm all for self reliance but people need to be kept in line by something and a single person can't be trusted with the responsibility of keeping their morels in check. Also with no government there would be no services to get food, water, or power, people would have to find them, if an argument or supply dispute happened people would kill each other, and the most heavily armed and supplied group would rule like a dictatorship. I wish this wasn't true but it is in this modern world, anarchy can't exist as a government form.
The "idea" of "true anarchism" can be thought of as "good" if we just explain it, how ever the only way we know Anarchism is good if we implement it into society, which we know doesn't really work out. Unfortunately , humans are animals at heart, we need to be told what to do. We have rules and structured Government powers for a reason. So yes Anarchism is a bad thing
Glass-half-emptyers seem to swear by Anarchism, while it is a fun idea to toss around, and you sound like a real, hard, tough, thinker, the actual idea is bloody terrifying and I don't know why anybody would ever want it too happen. You have to stop thinking about all the bad things laws and Governments do and start thinking about the good things they do. Most importantly, they keep people united.
But they also temper the vicious human spirit. Any man who honestly thinks we could ever live by our hearts and minds for long is sorely mistaken. It'd be Lord of the Flies pdq. People can be pretty messed up and all it takes is a couple cats in the hen house, so to speak, to screw everybody up.
My analogy is this:
You are on a car conveyor belt in a factory and you have to meet a quota at the end of the day. You notice that three people up the belt aren't attaching doors or snapping on mirrors. Suddenly the system is broken. Thus, Anarchy.
I do not wish to re-type everything I already have on another opinion. To see what I think on this issue, please refer to my response to "Is anarchism a good thing?" There, I deliver my beliefs as well as facts and definitions as to why anarchism/anarchy is a bad thing.
Anarchy could only work in a world of infinite space, nearly unlimited economic opportunity. Basic,crude human urges and desires might make biological sense further back in our species history (lust, ambition and greed,) but in a situation with any observable population density such base urges must be moderated, that's where laws come in. The higher population density the greater the need for laws and regulations. Anarchy today would equal chaos and insecurity. Not everyone is going to behave because there will always be greedy, lustful, jealous, unruly people. When we were disperse, small bands of hunter gatherers such people were in less contact with other people, likely only in contact with blood relations within their tribe or band.
Just like breaking an egg at your head instead of your hand!
There is harm everywhere. Look at the bright sight of Anarchism.
It balances the earth. A leader that justify society problems. Plain, simple and straightforward. We do not need lawyers, police or burial grounds. With Anarchism, is purely survival to the fittest! If you are weak, you are gone! Since there is no heaven or hell in today 21st century society! Why not anarchism?
Real anarchy would mean a complete absence of any violence in society which would be wonderful, but also impossible. As for other versions of 'anarchy' it's not that it's a bad thing. Whether it's good or bad or whether or not it would work is the wrong question. These so-called versions of "Anarchism" are on closer examination proposals for systems of government hidden behind pretty words that make them sound like they aren't really governments.
The fact is self-proclaimed anarchists rarely, rarely actually believe in anarchy if you look at what they actually believe in. Noam Chompsky calls himself an anarchist, an anarchosyndicalist actually. And in Spain in the 1930s they tried to have an anarchosyndicalist revolution, which was lead by two worker's federations of recallable delegates that indeed had measures in place to deal with criminals. Anarchists typically call this "social defense" and use buzzwords like "voluntary organization" to beat around the bush and justify calling their preferred form of social organization "not a government".
One person who called themselves an anarchist(this one being pro-capitalist) suggested there would be a community organization funded entirely voluntary either through charity or business arrangements that would deal with crime. That's a state. The fact that taxation is replaced with voluntary funding does not make it not a government.
Another said competing businesses would provide security according to contracts. Still to prevent civil war they'd have to make deals with each other and the network of decision-making formed in this process would be a government, a very flexible and decentralized (and plutocratic) government but still a government.
Likewise the left-wing anarchist ideal of democratic worker and community councils is basically just a highly decentralized and democratic form of communism which we could very well have a nice debate over but let's not pretend it's not a form of government.
Then you have people who use the anarchist label in order to define a philosophy of recognizing the fact that we can already do what ever we want. Which is true though there may be consequences including consequences that come from an organization called "government". No point in calling oneself an anarchist for recognizing such a basic truth.
And you have anarchopacifists who believe that since government by definition uses force and violence is wrong because they are pacifists that therefore government should dismantle itself in order to be nonviolent. This is a utopian idea that would never happen, but my hat's off to these anarchists. It's a noble ideal that violence should never be used under any circumstances even if it's not completely realistic.
Anarchy as a simple lack of any form of government would mean that anyone can do whatever they want without legal consequences, but instead, consequences would be carried out personally, physically, emotionally, and mentally. If one person kills another, the allies of the victim will kill the murderer. People can carry out their own consequences based on human's dormant animalistic tendencies
Anarchism by the definition i know is no government affiliation in business or other corporations. Businesses strive when the government doesn't have total power over them, or in fact any power over financial decisions. The government is not in any way higher than any other group of people put into an office and told to take 40% of man's well-earned money. It's not like the government has done much to help our country these days. Our debt as a nation has risen over five times in the past few presidential terms. Obama managed to make national debt higher than the debt during all other presidential terms COMBINED.
So to answer the question in simple terms, anarchism is no rulers, not no rules. Banks and businesses would still operate, just without the government regulations and/or associations. In the early 1900's, people kept 100% of their salaries, and there were still roads and banks and corporations and everything needed for society to thrive the right way.
No, Anarchism wouldn't work in to today's society. Anarchy relies on people's morals, some people's morals are lower than others, thus criminals. Anarchism as a system doesn't deal with crime, you do. Or possibly someone that works as an investigator / detective would (or a voluntary security force or something, different communities would have different systems).
As far as economics, I agree, problems would arise, since there is no official currency created by a government. The best way I can put it is: I'm sure people would band together and make some form of currency, or maybe barter. (I know that sounds bad, and it is, it's one of the many flaws in Anarchy).
Yes I'm sure someone that is rather greedy and wants power would probably rise, then Anarchy "falls", but Anarchy relies on you, and the morals you have, It's up to you to stop it. What I mean when I say "you" I mean everyone as an Anarchistic society. It's up to everyone to take up there own arms and fight for what they believe in, true freedom.
Paranoia would most likely reside in a lot of people's minds, creating problems among each other. Yes, that is an issue, but in an Anarchic society, wouldn't the people that are going to murder, steal, rape and pillage do it already? There's no laws, why not? Anarchy would do a good job rooting out the sociopaths and psychopaths. Yes anyone is free to purchase a weapon, so criminals would do more damage before they go out. There would also be a decline in criminal activity, because of the probability of someone owning a gun would be much greater, so it would take a bold criminal to do whatever it is they'd do.
Corporations wouldn't exist on the scale that they do now, neither would their influence (or money). Yes they'd still exist, and probably have competition, then there would be more production value. It would be much easier for scam artists to scam people, but they'd be short-lived, because not many people would fall for their lies. Discrimination would be legal (because everything is) and that is just another flaw anarchy has. Discrimination would most likely kill many depending on where you live, what color you are, and your age. That's one of the many reasons Anarchy wouldn't work in today's society. Discrimination has been increasing (from what I see, haven't researched that) lately, because of white police officers killing people of other ethnic groups (criminal or not, people get angry about it nonetheless) In an Anarchic society, unnecessary hate for people will be an issue, but it wouldn't be as big as it is now.
There are many other things I could cover, but honestly, I don't feel like typing EVERYTHING, you know? But there's a few reasons why I think Anarchism isn't a bad thing.
That's incorrect. It gives you almost 100% safety, people would not kill people because of there family members or a group members would come for blood and take revenge for the family member or friend. You could say that the murders family and friends would get involved i disagree. If they were not in the murder in the first place they most likely wont have the guts for revenge and they might just feel that its there dang falt, let them suffer the demise.
Dnc snjkzxocnsjkjcnfb cnjdkowkjcn d d s d d d d ddddd d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d dddd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
With a chief or ruler than that means not one person has power over the country so no this is my opinion to the Debate so no! No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Anarchy has many meanings. But it usually means peace with as little or no authority at all. Yes I am an anarchist and I love being one and im going to stay one. You should become one to. Stand up for what you believe in. Sabotage the system , create anarchy
First of all, there are far too many spammy, copy and paste answers on the 'no' section.
For the actual argument, I am perfectly aware that government can screw everyone over, and can fail us like clockwork. I would much prefer that than mob rule. Anarchism wouldn't work in the real world, people already ruined Socialism.