Can Anarchy do better then laws in a country?

Do you think people will keep more out of trouble if there were no laws in a country? There would be no order. But isn't that what a majority want? I would want laws in my country. People need to have boundaries in their lives. what are your thoughts on Anarchy in government.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Anarchy does not mean no order.

I believe Anarchism to be the only morally justifiable way to bring order to a society. It is democracy in it's truest form.

There are many misconceptions about Anarchism, too many to get into while just answering your question.

Peace.

reply to post by broahes


You're talking about Libertarianism? Am I right? It would be nice of you to share a link on the politics of Anarchy.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


No, Libertarians are almost there though.

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization.

A good place to start would be here.

Mod Edit: Posting works written by others

Anarchism is fairly complex and no one really agrees what it means. I would suggest you read up on it, and then offer a more thorough example of what you mean by anarchism.

Thanks for the support guys! I would look more into anarchy and understand it's savaged nature.

anarchy no , as many people shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves , maybe next generations if they will manage to grow in a better world , without the kind of media we have today , without all the psychotic entertainment we have today

But i'll tell you what people really want. The concept of state as we know it to be changed . And maybe sometime in the future history of humans it will change

Nobody should allow a handful of people to collect money from others as taxes for living on a land. Nobody should allow a couple of people to decide for the life of the vast majority . You think that by voting you exercise your freedom and democracy , but it doesn't really make any difference as you don't really chose your representant
We chose the one given to us from a well made list

Anarchy would allow the organic, self-organizing elements of society to rise.

Weirdly our current system basically allows the criminal elites complete anarchy over our subservient lives.

They are just different forms of anarchy.

Less perverted anarchy where everyone gets a chance, or current anarchy for the rich where ONLY they get a chance & another chance & another chance . . .

one would like to think there might be some spare, clinically clean government that makes life systematic & orderly for certain utilitarian functions & then allows people freedom of choice, in so far as they don't transgress upon unwilling others.

It would work in servitude to people, & people would fully respect & honor that commitment to their benefits.

But based on what we have now,

how would honest anarchy be any worse than this?

Smaller, more local governments tend to be closer to the people & more responsive to them.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by slank]

In a short answer to the title of this thread:

No

Originally posted by slank
Anarchy would allow the organic, self-organizing elements of society to rise.

Weirdly our current system basically allows the criminal elites complete anarchy over our subservient lives.

But isn't the "criminal elite" a "self-organizing element of society"?

The problem with all these theoretical givernment systems is that they only work if everyone is the same. Luckily society is hugely variable, meaning that theortical systems won't have a chance. These are "test tube" ideas invented for academics to chat about at their dinner parties.

If you had ten people in a room, in time one person would become a leader - or be elevated above the others. This may be because they are more skilled, or just more talkative. Bang goes anarchy!

Democracy is a better expression of the way mankind works, rather then the default "winner takes it all" despotism. However flawed you all think democracy is, it is far better than all the alternatives IMHO.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


1. Anarchism is not a theoretical government system.

2. Anarchism is democracy in it's truest, fairest form.

Learn something about anarchism before you say it can't work.

Originally posted by FBI 33
In a short answer to the title of this thread:

No

Do you care to elaborate as to why, or at least humor us with how you feel any of the current systems we have in place work better?

I was an Anarchist when I was younger, and if the truth is told still am at heart.

Unfortunately there is only one thing that would spoils it; people.

In an ideal, utopian world it would be great, but there will always be someone looking to exploit and get the better of someone else.

Oh, to be young and idealistic instead of being old and cynical.

Originally posted by Raustin
Anarchism is fairly complex and no one really agrees what it means. I would suggest you read up on it, and then offer a more thorough example of what you mean by anarchism.

Yep, good call. This is a good place to start: dwardmac.pitzer.edu...

I don't Think it is a good Idea, It seems It would kinda end up being like in the movie the Warriors, just a bunch of warring Gangs with a theme. maybe not to that extreme but close. with no real Laws, people would turn to vigilantism... I think Anarchy is a cool idea when you are young, and then after you grow up, you realize what a horrible world it would make.

reply to post by Target Earth



Do you even understand Anarchist Theory, or are you just using the 'common' perception of Anarchy? It's quite a complicated subject and delves deep into the heart of humanity.

See the link I attached in the post above yours.

I would like to think that Anarchy COULD do better than laws in a country. However the problem is, as always, misconstruction, lack of understanding about the terminology and people themselves, who always seem to have one agenda or another.

reply to post by broahes


Sorry, but anarchism is a theoretical form of government. By theoretical read unattainable.

There does not seem to be a commonly understood interpretation for what anarchism is, but in my book it is society without authority. I am afraid that in human society there is authority, either explicitly, or implied through act and intent. Even the most hippiest of hippie communes will end up with some form of authority. Decisions have to be made!

It is a theoretical form of government because I doubt you could get ten humans to live together without some form of authority, let alone several thousand or million!

If you disagree then maybe you could - in your own words, and concisely - say what anarchy is from where you stand and (more importantly) how it could work in a society full of different people.

Regards

reply to post by aorAki

Yes I understand the basics of Anarchy, I grew up punk... I have always liked the idea of personal liberty... but most of the countries that have plunged into somewhat of a state of Anarchy have been met with disaster. There is just to many jerks for it to work, for a extended amount of time

The only laws in a country are the ones that the police target on people who they go after.

The police kill for there friends in desperate ways to cover up crimes against victims, while the victims of the police friends then become the targets for the police, in a way just to cover up all there crimes.

I think this video sums it all up pretty well. I'm sure most everyone here knows the differences, but for those that don't, this is govt 101.




Anarchy leads to situations like Somalia and the like.