A government which is getting more and more unecesible for citizens, transforming a citizen more into a child awaiting candy from his parents than an active political entity.
So have I, but most people I've met regret knowing. It's sad, but that's is what we have.
For the same reason currently that there's people that want communism when it is proven that communism ends up in a dictatorship. It's simple freedom of thought, and no government or thereof lack of it can change that.
People will not do anything they want when they finally realize that other people can do anything they want back. Initially, starting an anarchy would be hard, but maintaining it would be fairly easy.
That is an incredible point for the usefulness of government.
I think that a government is necessary because of the essential selfishness most people have. I think that people would attempt to create governments because that gave them power. These would not be evil people, they might be people trying to make their 'tribe' better. I'm going to write a little scenario because I think that makes explanation easier.
Scene: For some reason Britain has got rid of it's government and is now functioning as an anarchist state.
An excellent speaker in the small town of Matting persuades the people there to share their supplies with one another and eventually persuades the town to use only the farms and river nearby for food, thus making the town self sufficient. After this (s)he persuades the people to do other things, for example everyone agrees to support the teachers at the local school so that they can keep the schools free.
After a while this character is so well liked and politically powerful that they are effectively mayor. They control the town, people don't have to do what (s)he says, but they do because this person can persuade other people to cut you out of society.
They are the leader, they can pass laws etc. Mayhap they persuade people to form a government of their own so that they can see the good works that have been achieved maintained.
What I am trying to say in a rather long-winded way is that people want order, in some places law and government will pop up again, not all, but some.
These areas will be better organized, they may even become warlike.
You mean "peasants", HorizonTal
See, this is not a problem of anarchy, this happens now, and it'll happen no matter what.
And governments are run by... *drum roll* OTHER PEOPLE!
He has to land some time. (And even if he's invested a whole lot of money in continuous flight, there's no way he can avoid everyone.)
Trust and reputation are both hard to gain and easy to destroy.
Again, show me how someone would do this. Also, so I'm out of society, so what? Say many people are "cut out of society" by this person, every person removed becomes a threat to this persons power.
Any government in an anarchy, would be, in its entirety, voluntary. People would pick and choose the laws they want to obey.
That's because anarchy was suddenly forced. Imagine what would happen if, somehow, the US became communist (or any other government besides what it is now, for that matter) overnight.
First - Maybe I would take you more seriously if you stopped to think a moment before insulting me.
Read the first point above. And the second one.
Wikipedia said:
You are confirming what I said.
you want to know something?
good, then we have come to an agreement
I've actually said earlier that an anarchy probably wouldn't start up so well. Once it was improbably established, it would most likely run very smoothly.
There are people who would make it their jobs to handle it. They would also handle people like themselves, in case of corruption.
No, it looks very bad on paper. It's why people are intent on attacking it.
Not politics.
Who says anarchy would be a utopia?
Arguably, the idiots would kill each other off, leaving the smart people who understand anarchy to live free. (I do not support this, by the way.)
Wrong. I am one of the people who would help handle it.
Again, I would stop you.
From what I read, it sounds like anarchy where people are forced to work for the good of everyone else. This creates problems:
Well it looks good at first glance, because everyone helps everybody out. Further thought shows it's flaws. Likewise anarchy looks bad at first glance. ...Because of bias against it, I assume.
There are many types of anarchy... and the one I know looks good on paper.
I say, my philosophy teacher too and everyone with who I've talked about it agree that it's an utopia.
Aren't you talking about communism?
The problem is that communism is based on Marxism, which stated that humans improve themselves through work (and satisfy himeslf), so you don't work for your neighbours, you work to improve yourself.
Yes, he was.Masiah said:
Please then explain to me what would make it "perfect". I just think it's the best way to run things.
One politician does not result in the loss of anarchy. Also, as I said, any laws made by a "government" that arises in an anarchy, are voluntary. As in, you pick and choose what laws you want to obey. Pretty pointless a law is if people are not required to follow it.
You describe it as spread out. It is not. It is all around you. It's you against the world. Good luck, have fun.
All the more reason to have anyone do it, instead of the insufficient police.
Honestly, it depends on what the people want. Most people would probably want the tools to defend themselves, as they do now. Isn't self defense legal?
Any that we want. Just because we have police doesn't mean we need a president. Personally, I think we'd keep courts.
Indeed I was.
Considering the current and foreseeable state of human existence, anarchy is the closest we're ever going to get. And yes, zomg Ephy just made a statement about the current state of human existence.
Nor does one influential person result in a politician. People listen to the person because he has a good cause, if it turns sour, he's going to be out on his ass.
And he describes it like the good guys couldn't do the same thing back.
There's also a difference between an organization that is tasked with something that may involve delegating power to them and a government. Take for example, amusement parks? They have the power to kick unruly guests out of the park, and that decision doesn't travel all the way up to the administration.
Srsly, how come there're as much nazis as anarchists and liberals. I can understand there's plenty of anarchists and liberals (even when I don't agree with them at all) since that's the current zeitgeist (libertarianism and materialism respectively). But nazis? I think someone said that those who voted for the last option had to be banned. And I agree.
