• Anarchy is Possible

    I am not sure why the OP included links to "Sons of Anarchy" by I am approaching this as a political philosophy question.

    Hobbes describes a state of perfect anarchy when he talks about the "state of nature" in which which mankind essentially atomizes to the level where individuals hold complete sovereignty over themselves. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/State_of_nature#Thomas_Hobbes

    This phenomenon has been imagined in popular media in the example: The Hunger Games wherein a state of effective Anarchy existed within the tournament space.

    Examples of Anarchy occur frequently around disruptive major disasters such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans where a lack of law enforcement and order imposed a de-facto state of Anarchy.

    When posed the question, is Anarchy possible? The answer is a resounding YES. Just raise men like you would raise wild animals and that state is easily attainable however momentarily as long as the individuals don't begin to condense into tribal groups.

  • Anarchy is not chaos.

    People have the wrong idea about anarchy. They think it means chaos and violence. Anarchy is the order that comes after the first days of chaos. If we ever achieve a complete destruction of the government and state, the first days everything will fall apart. Then, everything will start falling into place. People are good from the moment they are born. To achieve a true state of anarchy we must learn that chaos is only momentary and really create an order by ourselves, not imposed by anybody. A society where everyone is equal. I fear that the world has corrupted us so much that the idea of anarchy is just a twisted fantasy.

  • Anarchy is possible.

    Yes, Anarchy is possible. If you get enough citizens together fighting for the same cause then I think anything is possible. Will it ever happen? Probably not because you would really have to upset a lot of citizens at once before anything would ever happen. However, if the leaders of this country keep making stupid decisions, it is possible.

  • Freedom of Choice and Buying Insurance

    With the correct incorporation of a realistic, subjective "currency" such as gold or another precious metal, and with the gradual dissolution of government, it is unequivocally feasible for a state of anarchy to exist that has potentially greater opportunity than a state of any form of government. It relies greatly on the principles of economics--namely those of supply and demand and reputation. This would apply to the purchasing of insurance. A wide selection of "insurance" plans provide the same protection from things unpredictable as a government would, if not more. An individual may "subscribe" to particular insurances to protect themselves from what they choose to protect themselves from.

    One may wonder, however, how this will all be regulated. The answer is simple: by the people. In a nutshell, this is exactly what modern governments do. But governments often apply a blanket statement that applies to all equally in order to provide as much reasonable protection as possible. In an anarchy state, the people would individually govern what happens to certain companies by affecting their reputation. If a company wrongs a person, that person simply has to share that wrong with the public, and it would thus influence the company's reputation.

    Honestly, I think this system is easily simpler than government nowadays. Frankly, I find it insulting that a government forces us to pay them for protection we may or may not need. I think that if we want to make mistakes, that we should be allowed to make them on our own--it is how we learn. After all, in the end, when governments dissolve and when crypto-anarchy takes over or perhaps an apocalyptic event leaves everyone stunned, how are we living but in anarchy? Every man or woman for his or herself.

  • It is achievable.

    It is all based on level of government regulations being forced on people. The more restrictions and rules given will cause citizens to create factions like we have today. What would cause the rise of anarchy is if the government were to make all these groups irate from their regulations making them all share a common interest. This then will cause people to rise out and stand against the political system.

  • Government 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 occassionally 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.

  • It wouldn't be possible

    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.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.