Reasons for Anarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

For the anarchists, how did you come to your reasoning?

My tendency to favor anarchy over overarching -archies and -cracies < observing the foibles and insanities of all regimes so far observed.

My reluctance to institute anarchy < observing the general level of ideation, self control and consideration in the general public so far observed.

I'm not sure if I understand you, but I'm guessing you're saying that people might consider anarchy because they haven't seen a good government existing yet you wouldn't want to try it out yourself?

I am saying that by my teens I had determined I dislike government.

By my 20s I had come to realise [I led a sheltered life, it took time] that most people cannot operate a humane anarchy.

Don't need a reason.

I think that the point of an anarchy is that no one is operating anything.

In an anarchic order people will operate what they own with no government interference.

ruveyn

"Anarchy," is a slippery word that connotes different things to different listeners.

Anarchy can cover a spectrum from libertarianism, "I accept that there must be some government, but I accept no more than the minimum amount of government necessary," to true anarchy in which there is no government, to nihilism in which the disaffected feel they have license to destry the property of the wealthy.

The problem with that sentiment, ruveyn, is that in the absence of a government, there is no property--only possession. Property is the concept that gives a person a connection with the subject matter when the person is not in possession of it. I walked out of my house this morning, but even though the house is empty, it is still my property, and I can use the law to enforce that right against all intruders. Without government, I lose my land when I leave it and another occupies it, because he is then in possession of it.

Property is wholly and entirely a conceit of law, which is in itself a construction of government. Anarchy, in the true sense of the word, denies government, which precludes law and, in turn, denies any existence of property beyond simple possession.

Anarchy means I can use my balcony as a shooting range and so long as I only hit paper and not people it shouldn't matter whether or not I have or use a firearm in public. That may sound a little extreme, and it is meant to, but between a nanny state and anarchy I'd rather live in anarchy.

Well, that would make it the central myth of anarchism. People and groups of people have interests and power, and they are going to use that power to promote their interests. In the absence of a social contract (ie, law), the powerful will step in and impose their own version of how things are going to be. I see no reason to assume that such scenarios would be any better than what we have, and it could be much worse.

Sure, government is often inept, it can be corrupt, dehumanizing and even brutal. But that is not something unique to government. There is no reason to assume that if we somehow abolish government, that various blocks of power would not spontaneously assemble themselves to accomplish the same goals by different means. You cannot escape the human condition by advocating a political theory.

Most people would still want to get along, trade, build, travel, etc. Without permits for every single thing such becomes easier. Without taxes, it becomes less expensive, and without laws against owning weapons it becomes possible to defend ones property.

Regardless of who belives anarchy will work and who belives it will not this country(U.S) and probably the world is headed in that direction.

Why do you assume that in the absence of government the warlords will not step in and start levying 'fees' for those who want to travel or operate a business. Somalia, rural Afghanistan, and Haiti outside of the capitol are all anarchic. Without government, the power vacuum is filled by hustlers and gangsters, who are far more brutal and less efficient than our government. I prefer some sort of local democracy and regional/national republic -- sure beats "The Lord of the Flies".

Oh so it would be kind of like it is now except the 'government' would be honest about the way they are running things.

well to assume that everyone would kill eachother and stop working without the goverment or capitalism truly underestimates the human race. Police can be replaced by mutual respect and the people can all share in the work that drives our society

Ay de mi, I stay out of my finick mode and the wolves come out.

Restate:

Most people cannot allow anarchy to exist. An approximation to anarchy will quickly thanks to primary human traits such as greed, sadism, power will, the drive to standardization,and the like.
The initial outcome would be chaotic power struggle [part of why people think anarchy implies chaos] followed by consolidation into several larger structures - basiczally what we have.