Amazon.com Widgets

Is anarchy the only truly fair political and economic system?

  • Anarchy is fair

    Anarchy is often misinterpreted as a chaotic state of being but this is not the case. Yes it has less order than most government styles but in this state many will break into small groups that will manage themselves and regard each other as equal if they are anarchist. But if we manage ourselves their will be no people to say we can't do something. Yet with this being said murder and theft will be quite common. But with my mind set it is the preferred type of government.

  • Hhhhhhhhhh hhh hh

    Hhjg h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h

  • Hhhhhhhhhh hhh hh

    Hhjg h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h hh h

  • It is reasonable and could work

    If the country rids government but still maintains a military and police force it could work. The military wouldnt be run by the government but a private company. Hospitals could just become free to use but are also run by a private company or be run by donations. The people of the country could vote on if the country should use the military but not control all of its actions. Water could be distributed at places like a soup kitchen. The country could be taken by a private militia but the private military could easily put down the revolt. This could end corruption and be beneficial in other ways.

  • Anarchy is the law of nature

    I think people are missing the point. Anarchy is essentially a non government and economy. No governing bodies to control anything or set laws means that beyond the basic laws of supply and demand and risk, nothing sets the "price".

    Yes quality of life WILL deteriorate. That is not the point. We may seem more importance on basic survival under anarchy, but everybody still has the same chances, as long as everyone subscribes to it. Otherwise you will get mini political settlements of people and communities, which will stop it from working.

    The law of nature is anarchy, and it is absolutely the only true fair system. Does it mean it would work with humans? No. That is why we live the way we do today. Anarchy once ruled, but we created settlements and authority.

    Perhaps as less primitive beings it could work, but I think it is impossible to predict.

    Bottom line, it is absolutely the true and only fair system, as anarchy is the law of nature.

  • Absolute fair and absolute freedom cannot exist, and definitely cannot co-exist.

    In recognition of the fourth post on the other side, I understand that by your definition/opinion of fair, anarchy is not. However, any "fair" system (one that gives everyone an "equal shot" at life) can only be fair to those in agreement with your definition. I personally believe that anarchy, despite it's potential for material inequality, holds reasonable fairness with the greatest unrestrained freedom.

  • Anarchy is the state of affairs without government,

    so to argue for anarchy is the same as proving a negative. The only way to argue for anarchy is to enlighten people to the misconceptions of those that propose roles of government. "Without regulation, people face significant risks to their health and safety." Of course this is true, this doesn't mean that anarchy isn't a truly fair political/economic system. No one can name a government that institutes regulations that do not benefit some and harm others, this is the whole purpose of regulations. "The quality of basics such as food and shelter deteriorates," This is completely fallacious, would you spend your good money on crappy food and shelter just because government isn't there to instruct you otherwise? Of course not, you do not need government to tell you not to waste your limited resources, and those that do will end up with a vanishingly small influence on any market. "increasing worry about day to day living." if you want to see people that worry about day to day living look at those that are under attack by a government somewhere. However, if any person is likely to be able to defend themselves it becomes increasingly risky to take any violent action at all. The society with the least risk to violent action is the one where the people willing and able to defend themselves are clearly labeled such as police are today. "there is no way to address grievances," This is another example of revisionist history. Common law and arbitrators have been around long before dictators and legislators set up their own courts. "since there are no boundaries of right and wrong set in place." Once again society always works out what is right and wrong regardless of the state of government, the advantage of anarchy is the people get an actual say in what right and wrong are, as opposed to a few selected rulers. "This can lead to increased violence as people try to right the wrongs themselves." Once again, nothing makes violence more economically feasible than forcing people to be dependent on a government for protection. Furthermore, once a government has a monopoly of force it always uses it to obtain more power at the expense of the people it rules. "The advantage of government is that it can set rules under which society can remain orderly and fair." The important thing to understand here is what is meant by the term 'government', this is always a select few instituting their will on others. While it may be reasonable to expect society to be more orderly under government rule, that isn't the question at hand, plus a prison can be very orderly, just like any police state. As to fair, the whole point of government is to use force to get people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise. Human nature is to game any system of power to ones own benefit. The natural conclusion is a system where those best at gaming the system rule over those not able to do so, or those not willing to use force on others. "with no entity that can enforce rules,... strongest, most violent, most willing and able to impose their will, would be able to take what they wanted from anyone weaker or unable to defend themselves" The first thing a government does to protect the weak is to disarm the powerful (unless of course the powerful are the ones in control of the government). No government has ever been able to do this. Since the first man that created a sharpened stick some people will use violence to attain what they want. The actual effect of the government's measures to protect the weak, is to make more people week and unable to protect themselves. Furthermore, the only people that are able to protect themselves are the ones willing to defy the will of the government. The end result is a situation where it become less expensive and less risky to take violent actions on others. If the government holds a monopoly of force it becomes very easy to eliminate any risk in violent action. If any person could potentially be a risk to retaliate against any violent action, the risk and cost of initiating the violence rises. With a high risk and cost of initiating violence, the people willing to do so quickly make themselves uncompetitive in the market and they quickly reduce in numbers. "provides an orderly solution" Once again, orderly solutions does not mean fair. I implore you to read the remaining explanations on this page trying to argue anarchy isn't fair. The ones I haven't addressed either are hollow platitudes or have nothing to back up their statements. In conclusion I would paraphrase Winston Churchill, anarchy is the worst form of government, except all the other ones we've tried.

  • Anarchy is an essentially flawed political system, fair to no one.

    The idea of having no government appeals to some in theory, but ultimately fails in practice. People may think that anarchy equals freedom but without structure, no one benefits from this state of affairs. Without regulation, people face significant risks to their health and safety. The quality of basics such as food and shelter deteriorates, increasing worry about day to day living. If the worst does happen, there is no way to address grievances, since there are no boundaries of right and wrong set in place. This can lead to increased violence as people try to right the wrongs themselves.

  • No, anarchy is actually one of the least fair systems

    The advantage of government is that it can set rules under which society can remain orderly and fair. Under anarchy, with no entity that can enforce rules, the typical outcome would be that whoever was strongest, most violent, most willing and able to impose their will, would be able to take what they wanted from anyone weaker or unable to defend themselves - not fair at all! Government (when it is good government) provides an orderly solution where all types of people have a chance to succeed. Anarchy has been shown to work on a small scale, where problems can be settled by all affected, but any time you are talking about a society of any size or complexity, some form of government seems to be the best way to go.

  • What Does "Fair" Actually Mean?

    When we think of anarchy, we think of "survival of the fittest" and "anything goes". One COULD define this as fair in that everyone is governed by the same set of rules ... none. However, "fair" should include that everyone is give the same opportunities to advance and help level out any set-backs given with little to no control over the individual. Everyone should have the same "shot" to achieve success in life.

  • No it is not the only fair one.

    No anarchy is not the only true fair political and economic system. I do believe that we need to reevaluate what we are doing as an American society and there may be several solutions to this problem but anarchy is not the only one. I think though that we do need to come together as a country and figure it out.

  • Would you live without gravity?

    There is no argument here. I mean, it is a fact that humans, with their level of destructions, violence, greed, bias, judgment, hatred and corruption, cannot co-exist with each other without the help of rules, regulations, rights and responsibilities. In other words, if the world was formed of only anarchy systems, here where we would all be right now:
    *Anyone would kill anyone with or without a reason (So, we would all be no more) since there is no one to protect rights, let alone create them.
    *Who loves internet, and smartphones and computers, and games? Well, kiss those goodbye because we would still be in the Stone-Age.
    *I am wondering if there would be religions? If yes, then everything would be done in accordance of religious groups. etc.

    Bottom line, just like we cannot

  • Would you live without gravity?

    There is no argument here. I mean, it is a fact that humans, with their level of destructions, violence, greed, bias, judgment, hatred and corruption, cannot co-exist with each other without the help of rules, regulations, rights and responsibilities. In other words, if the world was formed of only anarchy systems, here where we would all be right now:
    *Anyone would kill anyone with or without a reason (So, we would all be no more) since there is no one to protect rights, let alone create them.
    *Who loves internet, and smartphones and computers, and games? Well, kiss those goodbye because we would still be in the Stone-Age.
    *I am wondering if there would be religions? If yes, then everything would be done in accordance of religious groups. etc.

    Bottom line, just like we cannot

  • Would you live without gravity?

    There is no argument here. I mean, it is a fact that humans, with their level of destructions, violence, greed, bias, judgment, hatred and corruption, cannot co-exist with each other without the help of rules, regulations, rights and responsibilities. In other words, if the world was formed of only anarchy systems, here where we would all be right now:
    *Anyone would kill anyone with or without a reason (So, we would all be no more) since there is no one to protect rights, let alone create them.
    *Who loves internet, and smartphones and computers, and games? Well, kiss those goodbye because we would still be in the Stone-Age.
    *I am wondering if there would be religions? If yes, then everything would be done in accordance of religious groups. etc.

    Bottom line, just like we cannot

  • Government ensures fairness

    The current system works perfectly, and although some may say "blah blah blah capitalism steals my money", without a monopoly, capitalism will morph to the customer or die, and it provides a fair incentive for people, as humans to work harder for the greater good. In anarchy, there is no incentive to work (i refer you to any article that explains, (in baby terms for anarchists), that explains the flaws of communism.), and if money exists, the central bank will become government as they have power over wealth and poverty. In your naive anarchic "solutions", you completely discount education, and healthcare, and law enforcement, and anything that allows the progression of the human race. Furthermore, I dispute the nature of the question, as anarchy is, by definition, not a political and not an economic question, and i dispute the nature of the debate.Org system, as it implies that more people voting are more correct (bandwagon fallacy)

  • Rule of Law

    Anarchy is not the only fair economic and political system. Anarchy makes no provisions for reasonable common defense. Instead, a libertarian society where the rule of law actually is applied, and the executive branch of government is not allowed to govern by fiat, is a more fare political and economic system.


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