Anarchists

[XPlumpedXLipsXandXArsenicX]

I'd like to discuss anarchy, and I'd like any ararchists to step forward so we can talk about it. I mayself support it in some ways. But I"m not sure where to begin with my discussion, so I'm asking someone else to start...Please, this is an inteligent conversation,NOT an "Anarchy is a stupid Idea!", "Let's kill the president!" sort of topic.

[Catara]

What do you see as some good points and some bad points of anarchy? The concept of anarchy is a very "rock and roll" kind of thing and has been glamorized by some groups. On the surface it seems to have some possibilities, but I think the more you look at it the worse it looks. Some sort of hybrid society including aspects of anarchy would appear to be the way to go. But, I would still like to see what you do and don't like about the idea of anarchy.

[Violet Chaos]

I'm not sure if you're looking for just general conversation or someone who shares your belief. None the less, here is my opinion. Anarchy is first off, (from what I know) against the forming of any sort of groups and rules and for anarchist to come together and change rules would completely defeat the purpose. Also, for anyone who's read 'Lord Of The Flies' or just has any common sense would see that no government would not work at all. Humans are too selfish to just abide by guidelines. If/when there were/are murders, what would happen? There's no need for criminal investigation, because there's nowhere to send the criminals because there's no laws forcing them into jails. Of course we don't always find murderers or thieves but I can't even fathom the sort of disarray and chaos that would occur if this theory ever happened to come into play somewhere.

[Demize]

Anarchy is impossible under it's definition. An anarchy is a government with no government. If there is no government, then a body of people or an individual will step up and govern the country. But, it would be pretty cool if there was a real anarchy. I just wouldn't want to live there, for fear of being killed.

[foxxyD]

I'm not an anarchist, but I've read a lot of the literature (Thoreau, Goldman, etc), and I'm very open minded as far as discussion goes.

 

In theory, I see it as an ideal "utopia." If we look at the aftermath of Katrina, the closest example of agovernment I can think of, even after the danger was over, there were (and still are) people killing each other and stealing simply in their own self-interest. There's the famous picture of the man knee deep in water with a shopping cart full of Heineken - it's not like the people were taking NEEDS (food, water, shelter). A cart of beer and a 42'' plasma TV aren't all that necessary to survival.

 

My personal philosophy falls somewhere between Hobbes and Smith. I believe that humans are individualistic by nature, and that they will do whatever they can to get ahead. The restrictions set by government serve as deterrents - the only thing stopping me from going out and slaughtering a bunch of nuns is the fact that I'll probably be thrown in jail, which is against my self interest. The threat of retaliation outweighs my desire, and thus I restrain myself.

 

Basically, it depends on your view on human nature; whether humans are social or individualistic by nature. If you assumed the former, it's safe to say that you'd expect humans in a state of anarchy to help each other for mutual interest, and to act for the good of the "society." The latter, however, would assert that anarchy would just throw the individuals in question back to Hobbes's state of nature.

[meriadoc]

It seems to me that for anarchy to work everyone would have to play nice, but we know that just isn't going to happen. A few people have already stated the obvious that most people are out to serve their own self interest. Most will do what it takes to survive or get ahead. The only thing limiting how far they go would be their own sense of decency or morals.

 

Part of the world's history has had short periods of anarchy. It doesn't seem to take very long for these voids to be filled with some sort of government. The aftermath of Katrina is a good example. The government did not have control of the situation and was not present to prevent the chaos that ensued. While the U.S., State, and Local governments still existed, they did not have a presence to keep the situation in check. It wasn't long though that the government stepped forward with the resources necessary to regain control. Another example is the period after the Iraqi army was defeated. Iraq took a quick nose dive into a lawless state and there was no government to speak of. Eventually people stepped forward to establish a temporary government, followed by a more permanent government. Although Iraq still has problems to work through it once again has a government in place.

[JcX]

Anarchy would be best if all citizens who live inside hold tightly to what they believe is good and practice it everyday.

Based on their conscience heart, they do what they think is right.

Based on their believal in religion or scientific facts, they do what can benefits more than destroy.

 

I always hope this can become true, but only in dream.

In real life, greed always filled human heart. Hence it's quite impossible to have a anarchy.

There's a quote in Chinese that sounds like

"If man don't think for himself, the world will be doomed!"