Anarchy: can it really work?

I've been doing a bit of research on Anarchy and while I agree with it to a point, it seems like it would only work on a very small scale.
In society wouldn't it just result in chaos, in people hurting each other, in crime?

 

Only if the police are the only thing keeping you and millions like you from raping and pillaging as it is. And if that's the case, we're all fucked. An abrupt transition to anarchy would most likely not end well for some people. But there are plenty of people that would benefit and for whom little would change. For it to be most feasible, people need to be weened off the government teet they've been sucking for the last century.

 

I suppose. I think I would do fine in an Anarchy society, but there's a lot of idiots out there who love taking advantage of others.

 

That's why you get a gun, and accept that protecting your own interests has just become your responsibility. It may seem like an alien concept since we have allowed the state to take care of that for so long.

 

but then won't that just result in some wild west style contstant shoot out, constantly living in fear someone will put a bullet through your head?

 

There might be some places that are like that, but I see no reason to think that government is the superglue holding society together and the only thing keeping us from embracing our cannibalistic, supremely selfish, entirely unempathetic natures. If people are so inherently selfish, shortsighted and untrustworthy, then why do we allow them to govern us in the first place?

You are asking a very good question. It's a shame that too many people won't even take the time to seriously consider the possibility than anarchy won't lead to the "wild wild west" scenario you have postulated.

IMO, anarchy becomes more feasible as time goes on and technology invests more power in the hands of individuals than we have ever seen before. If the trend continues (ie: we don't irreparably fuck up), hopeful we will see the strength of nationstates and the powers that govern them dwindle as the 21st century marches forward.

 

Like I said, it does seem like a great idea, and I think were it to happen there's (hopefully) plenty of people who are intelligent enough to not go around taking advantage of others and whatnot. But what about the idiots, the "gangstas" the manipulators, the people who wish to harm others? I don't know whether or not I believe people are inherintly selfish, but I think they are to a point, and with the people i've seen in today's society in general I fear it would be a bunch of people stealing from one another and trying to take advantage of one another, clawing to get "ahead".

 

This guy thinks so,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

 

works for me dont think it would work as a general thing though---too many assholes

 

I would argue that every and any action is inherently selfish, but that is a esoteric philosophical matter. What I would fear most from anarchy would be the rise of monopolies. Even though supposedly it would be far more difficult for a monopoly to emerge in a real free market than it is in the current state-capitalism system we have, the possibility of a de-facto government rising from the market is something that worries me. Since I abandoned socialism (about three years ago), I have been struggling with the idea of where we draw the line. In what areas, and under what circumstances, is a state wanted, necessary, or helpful?

Basically, I view anarchy as an asymptote. The point which is never reached, but toward which a society can grow arbitrarily close. The idea and government in and of itself is not as much anathema to me as the massive, centralized bureaucracies the West has been breeding since the industrial revolution. I sometimes refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist because I consider it to be the ideal societal organization--especially because it leaves room for small societies to deviate if it is in their best interest--I also recognize that it is precisely that: an ideal.

 

I think it's a fact that we all need to accept: there will always be assholes in society just like there will always be saints. But I think it's also pretty obvious that the assholes and manipulators of the world have a far better chance of succeeding in taking advantage of others in a society that empowers these kinds of people, which I would argue is the kind of society we live in now.
To me, the point of anarchy is to challenge and break power down so that everyone, not just a few, has an equal ammount. I would argue this further myself but I think Ryan Harvey, of Riotfolk, does a much better job:

 

No, because people are selfish and will break the law all the time. Hell, I live in a democracy and I see people break the law all the time. (Like for parking in handicapped spaces, burning fires in their backyards.)

 

I used to support anarchy, but as I grow up an mature, it seems like its just a bad idea. too many violent assholes and psychos out there. I think maybe anarchy can work on a small scale like communes or something, but I think its good to have at least a small form government and law enforcement to protect people, at least those who cannot protect themselves. How is the 89 year old grandma gonna defend her china collection from asshole thieves in a world of anarchy?
Anarchy is a nice idea, a great ideal as someone else said, but I don't think its plausible or sensible, at least in today's world. maybe someday.

 

agreed. even if it were to happen, a few assholes would just go around shooting all the nice people.

 

Much to the chagrin of 14-19 year olds everywhere; on a global scale pure anarchy cannot work. It could happen, of course, the world wouldn't simply go away if anarchy took hold. But it wouldn't be anything the majority of us would consider 'good'. Although if you happened to become one of the warlords of the rape & pillage gangs, you may enjoy yourself. Until a rival warlord killed you.

Perhaps after a while when the majority of the population was eradicated and most of the survivors had formed small anarchistic communes where the need for survival forced people to work together, things would 'work'. Of course lifespans would be cut in half, there would still be plenty of rape and pillage gangs, and most higher pursuits in science or intellectual fields would all fall by the wayside.

Most people are not bad people; however most people are far too timid or fearful to stop the bad people from doing whatever they want. Plenty of 'good' people would find themselves acting like animals, while the outright scumbags would enjoy a field day. Eventually we'd more or less regress to the dark ages and beyond, or the 'good people' would end up forming some sort of collective to survive...and it would inevitably begin to form a sort of government.


More or less the same reason a pure form of communism won't work - the bad segments will taint the easily led and timid segments and eventually drag the good folks down too, or force them to take charge.

 

you speak truth! This is the truth behind anarchist views... now only if people could grow up and understand this.

 

obviously just wanting to tear everything up, can only result in everything being torn up.
nonconfrontationally boycotting hierarchy is another matter entirely.
heirarchys are very useful in a very small number of narrowly defined contexts.
i see no problem in limiting them to them.
these i refer to are the skills and professions involved in creating and maintianing tangible physical infrastructe and egineering it to be harmonious with nature and keeping it that way.

 

no, the 10-20% that are problems will be dead, and everyone else will be well-mannered. A MAJOR improvement over nearly everyone being helpless, and a few having all the power/money.

 

It wouldn't be so different from now, people already hurt each other and there are places where chaos is an everyday thing. And it usually happens because of the bad condition of the government who is corrupted by power and money.


Anarchy,
There is no government like no government!

 

The question for me is, would I rather be shot at/starved/emasculated/ripped off by a government or by a bunch of assholes. Seems to me the same things would happen, just maybe different victims/times/places. Much of governmental power comes from the widespread belief that we need governments because most ppl are assholes. This simply isn't true, most ppl are ok. Politicians, whatever they say, want power at some point and will do anything to get it. Its well known that if a state governor wants to be president one day, he/she must look tough and execute anyone sentenced to death regardless of any doubts they might have. ALL those who reach the upper echelons of power have done this or stuff like it. With anarchy you might get hurt but you've got a chance to escape the small gangs that would inevitably try and rule. They wouldn't have the worldwide infrastructure they'd need to track their victims down, like world governments have.