Sadly, Anarchy will not happen over night. It will not be voted in or anything like that. I believe that the people will start to be fed up with their governments and eventually turn to Anarchism, maybe without even knowing it! Violence will happen in this process, because the government will obviously try and stop a "revolution" from happening. Those months or years will be violent. Like I said, this will gradually happen over time.
I disagree. People value law, order and the lot more than freedom. we can have the Constitution, but if there's no state to enact that or enforce that, it would be a wholly pointless but noble venture. The State is far more crucial than people think it to be.
We have seen over the past century in the West the overwhelming preoccupation of the market and privatization, combined with a neo liberal economic approach ( which spectacularly floundered in the 1930s and 1970s). We see a growing anti state mentality that has diverted and distracted attention from the need for a state that is competent and able to deliver. Virtually all periods of spectacular economic growth in modern history after the advent of economics as a serious field of study depended heavily on state intervention and participation. America immediately post WWII till the 60s in what has been termed the Golden Years, Japan's meteoric rise to become the world's largest economy in three decades, China's incredible volte face that shifted from an anti capitalist stance to one that is arguably even more capitalist than most developed nations, the rise of the Asian Tigers, all relied heavily and ineluctable on government intervention.Â
The West often sees the state as inevitably prone to ossification, atrophy and anachronism. Is this true in the Western world? To a certain extent yes, Western governments today often find themselves in a state of near paralysis, beleaguered by a polarized society with it's authority impugned and questioned constantly due to it's inability to deliver the goods. So is anarchy the solution? No.Â
Anarchists believe that under their system, each individual and group would be free to contribute to production and to satisfy their needs based on their own choice. Systems of production and distribution would be managed by their participants.
This is true. Unfortunately, that is itself it's profound weakness. A system that is not regulated often lapses into what we refer to economically to as market failure. People only consider what is good or bad for them individually, they fail to recognize externalities, or third party costs that are not factored into decisions. Left to it's own, a factory will continue to pollute it's environment; its logical to so so because they're maximizing profit based on individual benefit. Yet they do not consider the cost to society. The state has to step in to regulate in the real world.
Public goods, merit, demerit goods, regulation of economic cycle (lack of regulation such as fiscal policy proves the bane and downfall of governments during the 1930s); these are all areas which state intervention is necessary and beneficial.Â
The State is an institution that is often viewed with suspicion, an organization that people are obsessed over in holding account to, seeking to define, limit and constrain it's actions. If too much of that happens, the State cannot function. Is the State therefore a bygone fossil? No, far from it, and we have ample example from Asia and Latin America to dispute that nonsensical claim.Â
We claim the State is bad. Yet the alternative is far worse. A society that is imagined to be based on peace and law cannot exist due to human nature, OP claims we misinterpret anarchy as just disorder, yet that is what it most likely will end up as. Communism sputtered and foundered because of human nature and weaknesses, anarchy is not likely to fare better.Â
