Anarchism

Sometimes i wonder what the world would be like if anarchism was the only ideal we know and even after a while i cant think about any outcome, some people may say "well it would be hell on earth everybody is free to do whatever they want and knowing humanity it would be total chaos" but how can you say that? this as never been tested before, it could be a good way to rule ourselves.
Anarchism fascinates me but i cant support it , i cant support something without knowing its outcome or effects on our world.

If you feel like we're stealing the show here D3vil, just say the word.

You don't understand. It isn't the goverments job to give people anything, or take anything away. There are several nations and states that survive with small beuracracies and can maintain a government without taxing their people. If people want something, it is their responsibility to get it for themselves, not for the government to pay for it with stolen money. The minimum the government needs could be gained with simply a corporate tax, and a tarriff on imports. Until the 2oth century, that is how we funded the government, without a tax on personal income. Most of the money we pay taxes for simply feeds an unnecessarily large beauracracy.

Not even close to what we have now. Not even comparable.

@joske
Let's go through the basic argument here. In an anarchistic society, would there be laws protecting people? Who would enforce them?

well if you want total anarchy, go to some third world country where the government has collapsed and everyone is "free" to do what they want.

Well not in the sense of the ones we have now, but people probably would have some sort of basic rules they collectively agreed upon.

So, how is a third world country anarchy?

Third world country with a COLLAPSED government. No government means laws can not created or enforced which means you have anarchy, everyone just does what they want.

And which. . . country. . . would that be?

not really if the governament collaps the stronger faction will take power and form a new governament
that its not anarchy that s just chaos .

What if some people didn't agree? And in the unlikely event that they did, would there be law enforcement? Courts? Detention centers? Who keeps them in check? What if they were attacked, who would defend them? Who would organize the maintenance of infrastructure? Would thee be trade?

Somalia being a very good destination.

Are you just arguing semantics with me, whether or not I used the word country correctly?

@daddy no what usually happens is multiple factions try to take power, and this struggle could last for years before one over comes the others. I guess I should not have used the words total anarchy, but a warring third world country is the closest thing we have to that. The fact that factions will form and fight over power shows another flaw in the idea of anarchism. No one is there to enforce laws or really organize anything, someone is going to try to take over, and since you would have no organized defense force you could not stop them. Not to mention the problems the shaw pointed out. So I can't see an anarchy lasting very long.

Look I can spend the coming weeks answering all your "and how would you organize this" questions, but I think it would be better that you'd read up a bit on anarchism itself first.

So here you go: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

I feel uncomfortable using it in this situation, but nothing serious at you. I just wanted an example. But do you really think unstable governments and warring third world countries are a fair chance for Anarchism to prove itself? I doubt people in Somalia are even trying to attain to Anarchism! So how could that possibly be a reasonably way to determine if Anarchy is viable?

Well how do you suppose we should test it?

I don't really have a good idea. I would have to let someone who knows more about it than I do to answer that for you.

I meant in terms of the forms in which anarchism (or anarchism-lite with anarcho-capitalism) comes.

I've read some of this this morning and wow, it's certainly comprehensive. What a valuable resource for someone wanting to learn about Anarchism. Thanks!

And about Somalia:

This is a country with a very complicated situation and cannot be seriously called Anarcho-Capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Somalia

oh boy

Yes. Most of it would be common sense, and nothing would be written down. As that would undermine collective rights.

Anarchy is a state of chaos. Anarchism is a federated system of trade between autonomous Democracies, where the golden rule is collective rule.
lern2difference

They get voted off the island.

Outside of kangaroo courts? No.

You can fill in the blanks here. Try to remember that we're talking about one of the big four socialist schools of thought.

Somalia is simple third world warlordism. And there hasn't been an Anarcho-Capitalist system around since Feudal Europe.

As to my actual opinions on Anarchism? Doesn't fit me any more.
American Libertarianism on the other hand is simply social idealism and obsession with the past values of primitive societies.

I would point out that all of the G-20 have reletively large governments.

Care to elaborate?