Everyone says they don't like government right? Taxes, people in power they don't like, to many secrets kept from us, there are many reasons.
But what if there was no government? I'm talking about a State of Nature, where there is no government. The people make their own rules and ideas.
Considering human nature, this would be anarchy. Question is, which do you choose? Government, or State of Nature? And please, for the sake of argument, post why.
Government, albeit a fairly limited one. As Thomas Hobbes once said,'life would be nasty, brutish and short'. It'd be an interesting social experiement though.
To flesh out what I said a little bit earlier, I have 2 main problems with anarchy:
(1) How does an anarchy maintain itself as an anarchy? All the 'anarchic' societies I've read about seem to have rules and regulations in place, just on a smaller scale. Obviously there's a problem there.
(2) How do you prevent tyranny of the majority? Anarchists just seem to have a hopelessley optimistic view of human nature, that without rules everyone would get along and live happy, prosperous lives. I just can't see how that could ever happen.
1) How does an anarchy maintain itself as an anarchy? All the 'anarchic' societies I've read about seem to have rules and regulations in place, just on a smaller scale. Obviously there's a problem there. [quote]
In another sense anarchism may refer to the idea that people would better profit without a government of any kind. Anarchists believe that most people can govern themselves and would be happier doing so. Within this idea of self-government, as opposed to government by the state, fall many theories of how lack of a government could possibly work. Would people, for instance, have the same currency, be asked to abide by the same laws, or have any types of organized assistance?
It would be hard to argue that all individuals are capable of doing this. For instance, in a society that is deliberately anarchist, what would you do with a person who was severely incapacitated by mental retardation? The person might not be able to act in his or her own best self-interest or for the welfare of the society. If that person had no caretakers, what provisions in an ungoverned society would there be for caring for such a person?
Common sense might indicate establishing institutions for such people or at least some form of aid, but how would money be obtained for such? Itâs certainly been the case that formerly government run programs to help such people, that are now run on the basis of charity often need more money than they can get through individual donations. There would be no assurance in an anarchistic society that people requiring extraordinary care would ever receive it.
These types of questions have led to numerous anarchism societies, (the words themselves are almost oxymoronic given anarchism philosophies) each with different ways of suggesting how anarchy could successfully work. Some believe that individuals would use their common sense to help those less able to work in the world, and believe in maintaining some sense of rules and societal structure without a large government structure overseeing the process.
Others believe in total anarchy, supporting absolutely no agreed upon rules, each person acting for his/her own self interest. All community acts would be voluntary, but such a society would still be based on the neighborly interests of helping others for the good of a whole community. This would include things like voluntary agreement to repair roads, or keep hospitals open. Most anarchistic philosophies stress that communities would have to be relatively small and tightly knit in order to work. There have been a few small communities that have maintained anarchism for a couple of years without major difficulties. Chief among these was The Free Territory in the Ukraine, which thrived for a couple of years in the early 20th century without a government.
No. Absolutely not. Anarchists claim that if a leader treid to assert him/herself through force, the people would use force against him/her to prevent there being a leader with any real power.
That said, I can think of numerous leaders who have gained power without majority support within the framework of liberal democracies, so why anarchists seem to believe anarchy provides better protection against tyrants is beyond me.
Anarchy could be a good and effective form of government. Anarchy does not mean confusion or disorder, it means that everybody knows what he has to do. Everybody fulfills his tasks and does not bother his fellow citizen. My opinion is that anarchy can be partially achieved, though it will need much time and efforts.
