Can someone please explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work? Edited

[sneakysnake128]

Anarchy is not an established ideology in any way. Rather, it is a state of transition between social constructs from what we know as governments and chaos.

 

[RedKing135]

EDIT 2: Ohh and redking, thanks for the post

Any time

 

[Procastinator]

Anarchists will reject the current political system and so abstain from voting, an honourable political stance. Sadly, when it comes to polling day, there is no way to draw a distinction between those whose intention it is to abstain and this who are merely apathetic.

 

[Gerazzi]

well, I don't think that it would, but a supposedly hugely religious society maybe, but then that would be theism...

so screw it.

 

[iain62a]

It simply doesn't; anarchists are idiots, without exception. The only society that could handle it would be one populated only with purely altruistic citizens (AKA fantasy). Anything else (AKA reality) will immediately turn feudal or despotic as people band together to fight each other off.

I don't think you understand what is meant by anarchy in this context.

Anarchy can function very well in smaller scale things; tribes, hippy communes and so on.

What you're thinking of is chaos, not anarchy.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

It simply doesn't; anarchists are idiots, without exception. The only society that could handle it would be one populated only with purely altruistic citizens (AKA fantasy). Anything else (AKA reality) will immediately turn feudal or despotic as people band together to fight each other off.

I don't think you understand what is meant by anarchy in this context.

Anarchy can function very well in smaller scale things; tribes, hippy communes and so on.

What you're thinking of is chaos, not anarchy.

The distinction you're drawing is a paradox. You're wanting to remove laws and government, but still put restrictions on what people are doing. On one level it's fine to say that anarchy and chaos are not the same, but when A causes B you can't advocate A without endorsing B. People will not magically conform to your standards of behavior. Even people who agree with exactly what kind of society there should be will inevitably go against their own morals because it benefits them personally. Law is necessary for human survival; that fact is perhaps the one thing that is more certain than death and taxes.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Next, I under stand that anarchy isnt supposed to work HAHAHAH your all so clever and funny. Im asking how it would work. How would a society be able to have an anarchy without chaotic qualities.

I guess you don't get it, it wouldn't work it never will work as a permanent government. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)[thank you google). I can't think of a reason why it won't, it seems obvioyus until i come to type it but it won't work, you'll end up in a weird cross between the Wild West and Gordon Freeman. But without the aliens

 

[Nightmare1]

Cause as much chaos as possible and see what happens. KIDDING GODDAMN

EDIT: I guess i didn't make it clear that i was just kidding. I'm not sure how a society can be formed on the idea of anarchy. Without a leader how would decisions get made. How could society be brought together. It's not really a very well thought out form of government

Also, how would society survive if we were free to do what we want with no consequences their would be murders all the time, stealing, businesses would go bust and then there would be no economy in the country. we wouldn't be able to live like that.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Next, I under stand that anarchy isnt supposed to work HAHAHAH your all so clever and funny. Im asking how it would work. How would a society be able to have an anarchy without chaotic qualities.

I guess you don't get it, it wouldn't work it never will work as a permanent government. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)[thank you google). I can't think of a reason why it won't, it seems obvioyus until i come to type it but it won't work, you'll end up in a weird cross between the Wild West and Gordon Freeman. But without the aliens

I was refering to people that wanted anarchy long term, suporters. Loke 5-10 years after a major war. Like a coup overthrowinfg gov and no one ever claiming power

 

[iain62a]

It simply doesn't; anarchists are idiots, without exception. The only society that could handle it would be one populated only with purely altruistic citizens (AKA fantasy). Anything else (AKA reality) will immediately turn feudal or despotic as people band together to fight each other off.

I don't think you understand what is meant by anarchy in this context.

Anarchy can function very well in smaller scale things; tribes, hippy communes and so on.

What you're thinking of is chaos, not anarchy.

The distinction you're drawing is a paradox. You're wanting to remove laws and government, but still put restrictions on what people are doing. On one level it's fine to say that anarchy and chaos are not the same, but when A causes B you can't advocate A without endorsing B. People will not magically conform to your standards of behavior. Even people who agree with exactly what kind of society there should be will inevitably go against their own morals because it benefits them personally. Law is necessary for human survival; that fact is perhaps the one thing that is more certain than death and taxes.

First of all, I agree with you. I don't think anarchy is a practical solution to anything.

To be honest, anarchy doesn't neccessarily cause chaos, but it can easily fall into being pure chaos.

That's all I've got on that one really.



Also: this is an example of real anarchy.

Oh yeah.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Next, I under stand that anarchy isnt supposed to work HAHAHAH your all so clever and funny. Im asking how it would work. How would a society be able to have an anarchy without chaotic qualities.

I guess you don't get it, it wouldn't work it never will work as a permanent government. Anarchy is a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)[thank you google). I can't think of a reason why it won't, it seems obvioyus until i come to type it but it won't work, you'll end up in a weird cross between the Wild West and Gordon Freeman. But without the aliens

I was refering to people that wanted anarchy long term, suporters. Loke 5-10 years after a major war. Like a coup overthrowinfg gov and no one ever claiming power

That would be a Isocracy

 

[CuddlyCombine]

I just dont get it... How is a system like that supposed to work.

Anarchy isn't supposed to work. It's supposed to be the ultimate in freedom of expression for every individual. Of course, since that would lead to an ungodly amount of conflicting opinions, there would be no more productive activity.

Its like Marxism, good in theory but way to general to be practical.

I'm wondering why anarchy is good in theory; remember, there's no 'i' in 'team' (though there is an 'i' in 'union', but that's beside the point). Humanity wouldn't survive without cooperation.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Anarchy is impossible. If everybody is free to do what he or she wishes, somebody is bound to discover the potential of working cooperatively towards a goal. Eventually this group, due to its strength by numbers, will become the dominant force of its area. This dominant force, in order to keep its rule safe and its area orderly, will impose rules upon those who live within their dominion. Sooner or later, in order to take down those whom they see as opressors, the various individuals from the dominion of the aforementioned group will seek out support and create another group, which will then fight the first one. There you have two governments warring- no anarchy to be seen.

How would anybody stop a government from being created, hmm? With some sort of regulatory agency that prevents such a task...oh wait, THAT'S GOVERNMENT!

So yeah, I'm with the OP. I don't see how anarchy can work. A government can be created at anytime by a group with a large enough influence.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I just dont get it... How is a system like that supposed to work.

Anarchy isn't supposed to work. It's supposed to be the ultimate in freedom of expression for every individual. Of course, since that would lead to an ungodly amount of conflicting opinions, there would be no more productive activity.

Its like Marxism, good in theory but way to general to be practical.

I'm wondering why anarchy is good in theory; remember, there's no 'i' in 'team' (though there is an 'i' in 'union', but that's beside the point). Humanity wouldn't survive without cooperation.

Your taking the chaotic sense of Anarchy. Im talking about an Anarchy were people would just help eachother out (read redkings post 1st page) instead. Therefore, a true anarchy where every one sets evil intentions aside would be good, but its impractical

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Your taking the chaotic sense of Anarchy. Im talking about an Anarchy were people would just help eachother out (read redkings post 1st page) instead. Therefore, a true anarchy where every one sets evil intentions aside would be good, but its impractical

Anarchy is chaos, though; the complete and utter definition of the word. Any sort of organization or assistance leads to a chain of command or some sort of cycle, at which point you leave behind anarchy and progress towards some sort of government.

Anyway, even the sort you propose can't work because of human instinct to dominate. Somebody would try to become the leader.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Your taking the chaotic sense of Anarchy. Im talking about an Anarchy were people would just help eachother out (read redkings post 1st page) instead. Therefore, a true anarchy where every one sets evil intentions aside would be good, but its impractical

Anarchy is chaos, though; the complete and utter definition of the word. Any sort of organization or assistance leads to a chain of command or some sort of cycle, at which point you leave behind anarchy and progress towards some sort of government.

Anyway, even the sort you propose can't work because of human instinct to dominate. Somebody would try to become the leader.

I couldnt agree more, I don't think its possible for any form of Anarchy to actually work. What I want is for the "Anarchy" supporters to come ad explain to me how it could work

 

[tsb247]

In my experience, a lot of the proponents of Anarchy are of one of two wishful-thinking mindsets:

- "No government! The Man can't keep me down! I can go out and rob and steal and burn things and not get arrested! Woohoo!"
- "No government! No more taxes! Woohoo!"

A lot of them either forget or disregard that, without the rule of law, mob mentality takes over- i.e. if you're not strong enough to keep someone from taking what you have, whether it be your money, your food, or your life, then you have no recourse. The only 'justice' comes from strength (physical or military) and numbers. No road upkeep, no emergency services, no Internet.

I will build on this statement by adding something that an old political science teacher of mine once said.

"Anarchy can be defined simply as, 'My gun is bigger than yours, so GET OFF MY LAWN!'"

without a system in place to define leadership in a community (on the scale of a nation, state, province, county, city, etc.), there would be total pandamonium. Anarchy as a system (or lack thereof) can't work. It's against human nature to exist and not be governed. I can hear all the little anarchists now screaming, "You're wrong," but it doesn't do any good. Human nature is what it is. People need guidelines and rules to prevent us from sinking into a mob mentality.