Anarchy and why it COULD work

[Schillinger]

I was having a discussion in another thread regarding large and small government and since I did not want to derail that thread, I decided to write my opinion here. When the term "anarchy" is said, what comes to mind? Fire? Looting? The complete destruction of society? The definition, however, means a bit more though:

Noun

A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

The interesting thing about human society, is that the majority of recorded history has been with some sort of government. To be honest, modern day society has yet to even attempt an anarchist model (basically no government) aside from maybe the wild west in America. Many people think that with anarchy comes no law, or no written rule, but that's simply untrue. As seen in the wild west, there was law, there was simply no real government to keep order.

So my question is, why would anarchy be such a bad thing? More importantly, what was so wrong with the wild west that everyone uses it as example as to why anarchy would be a problem? If we look at modern day solutions to things like prostitution, drugs, and violence, you can't really say it's worked out that much better. You still have prostitutes on the streets, drugs cause wars like on the US border, and in America, we have the world's largest prison population. If prohibition would end, it could be said that these issues would be a lot smaller than they are now.

Let's look at alcohol as an example. When it was made illegal, an entire underground network popped up both violent and bloody. It caused monsters like Al Capone to run wild. Today we see the same thing with the war on drugs. Monsters sit on the US border beheading people simply because drugs are illegal in America. And why? These same drugs used to be sitting on the shelves of pharmacies, even used in Coca Cola. People weren't addicted to them back then, so why is it such an issue now?

I think the major issue is the FOR PROFIT prison system. And the fact that while we have a war on drugs here in America, our military is helping the countries we're supposedly at war with grow those very drugs. This is a Fox new report on US marines growing opium in Afghanistan where the country went from nothing in 2001 to one of the worlds largest suppliers of opium during US occupancy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryjc2q_-YsE

And what's the explanation? If the troops don't help grow it, then the Taliban will? Seriously? Or is it shipped back here, put on the streets, and used to pack our FOR PROFIT prisons?

That's just one example. The fact is, big or small, communist or socialist, government is both corrupt and the leading cause of unnatural death in this world in the past 100 years. People are capable of governing themselves, bringing justice upon each other, and it's time that we stop being ruled over. The entirety of human history is based on a monarch or government ruling over the slaves and at some point, it needs to stop. You can still have law and order without government, and that is our next step... at some point.

[Deleted]

"As seen in the wild west, there was law, there was simply no real government to keep order."

Then what's the purpose of laws when nobody's enforcing them?

And also, humans are pack animals. They need to be ruled over.

[Schillinger]

"As seen in the wild west, there was law, there was simply no real government to keep order."

Then what's the purpose of laws when nobody's enforcing them?

And also, humans are pack animals. They need to be ruled over.

There was law, sheriffs, deputies, etc. Each town had that. Federal Government simply had little control. That's really the point.

I agree that we are pack animals and that at some point there needs to be a leader. But why must it be national rather than local?

[Deleted]

I'd prefer any government, barring North Korea, than anarchy.

It's a naive ideal and it's no surprise it hasn't lasted.

Yes, there would be lawlessness. To have law requires institutions to enact and enforce, so right away you're employing a governing body.

[Bakis]

There was law, sheriffs, deputies, etc. Each town had that. Federal Government simply had little control. That's really the point.

I agree that we are pack animals and that at some point there needs to be a leader. But why must it be national rather than local?

Alot of the so called towns also had sherrifs doing the bidding of the leading cattle rancher whatnot.
Many were extremly corrupt that they would not really qualify for 'having law'

[Schillinger]

Alot of the so called towns also had sherrifs doing the bidding of the leading cattle rancher whatnot.
Many were extremly corrupt that they would not really qualify for 'having law'

So it's better to bring that corruption to a national level? That's exactly what we have now. At a local level it can be dealt with. When the Federal Government is in bed with banks and corporations, what can be done then?

Honestly, all we've done is make the problem larger instead of finding a solution to the local issue. I mean, we're to the point where even leaking documents on corruption, anti-constitutional behavior and war crimes are considered treason.

[Underverse]

A centralized government would be better. Humans need something to work towards to connect populations

[Stir]

Anarchy doesn't work because it doesn't have a protective force. That means that anarchy turns into totalitarianism within even a very short period in time.
Bakis mentioned the sheriffs who did the bidding of the biggest ranger. The biggest rancher becomes a dictator.

Anarchy can only lead to totalitarian dictatorship. Corruption isn't possible in such an environment, simply because everything that the top dog says, does or wants is simply fair game.

[Deleted]

It wouldn't work for the same reason as communism won't work. Humans are greedy. There would be gangs and militias bullying and ruling over the weak and defenceless. Without a centralised government there is no one to control these people.

I don't even know why anyone would want to live in a society with no form of government. Governments are needed for reasons a lot bigger than simply law enforcement.

Anyone seen Revolution? TV series about the loss of electricity, basically the governments of the world collapse and everyone is in total anarchy, it's a pretty good example of what would happen without any form of government.

[Zylos]

Your argument is that we go backwards in time and in human progress? So you would be cool with no organized school system, unkept roads no bridges, no internet, lack of adequate healthcare, freedom for a larger group of people to attack you at will, lack of scientific progress, constant attempts at land and resource grabs etc etc? because thats what you'd give up...sure whatever group you might associate yourself may be capable of addressing a few of these issues but likely not many of them.

Government isn't just for law and order, they provide critical services that others would not be able to provide, and they give us an entity for a very large number of us to unify under and create a collective good for the society. Sure government can become corrupt but at the very very core of government good and essential things are still up and running.

[Schillinger]

Your argument is that we go backwards in time and in human progress? So you would be cool with no organized school system, unkept roads no bridges, no internet, lack of adequate healthcare, freedom for a larger group of people to attack you at will, lack of scientific progress, constant attempts at land and resource grabs etc etc? because thats what you'd give up...sure whatever group you might associate yourself may be capable of addressing a few of these issues but likely not many of them.

Government isn't just for law and order, they provide critical services that others would not be able to provide, and they give us an entity for a very large number of us to unify under and create a collective good for the society. Sure government can become corrupt but at the very very core of government good and essential things are still up and running.

Who said I'm giving up anything? All that remains, government is simply gone. You keep the hospitals, schools, police, etc. You just stop FUNDING government. It becomes a local issue rather than a national issue.

[Underverse]

Who said I'm giving up anything? All that remains, government is simply gone. You keep the hospitals, schools, police, etc. You just stop FUNDING government. It becomes a local issue rather than a national issue.

If you don't fund it, it goes away

[Erolian]

An issue with this is pretty obvious. It is within human nature to attempt to control on any scale. While you can make many points and point out many bad things/reasons that government is bad the second government is gone people will just gather all of the bad things and give them as reasons to create a new government thus beginning the cycle anew even if we did break away from it we will always return because someone somewhere wants to tell his neighbor what to do.

Its probably the very fact that people want control that causes some to look upon the "wild west" system fondly because they would in turn have more control over their own life. At least until a couple hundred dudes showed up in a gang and said you're doing what we say or dying right here. Sadly I'm pretty sure this is a step we have already taken not the next step to take.

[Schillinger]

If you don't fund it, it goes away

Aye, and how did the towns in the west fund their sheriffs? It's really the same concept, just on a local scale. No we don't just let thieves and murderers run around, we lock them up just the same. We don't lose healthcare or education, we pay them for their services. All this thread is about is scaling things back to a local level rather than a national one.

[Underverse]

Aye, and how did the towns in the west fund their sheriffs? It's really the same concept, just on a local scale. No we don't just let thieves and murderers run around, we lock them up just the same. We don't lose healthcare or education, we pay them for their services. All this thread is about is scaling things back to a local level rather than a national one.

The west was wild for a reason

[Deleted]

Aye, and how did the towns in the west fund their sheriffs? It's really the same concept, just on a local scale. No we don't just let thieves and murderers run around, we lock them up just the same. We don't lose healthcare or education, we pay them for their services. All this thread is about is scaling things back to a local level rather than a national one.

Protectionism at this level is bad, period.
The world is much more complex now that it was in the time of the wild west, and even, this part of the world was totally disconnected from the world.
You cannot just reason like that is today's world.

And sorry, you lose education and healthcare in a system like that : those are systems build on the solidarity of an entire nation not small communities...

[Schillinger]

The west was wild for a reason

Which is? Corruption? The same issues we have now? Like it or not, people were FREE in the "wild" west. You have the same issues now as you did back then but with a Government that wants to play God.

[Underverse]

Which is? Corruption? The same issues we have now? Like it or not, people were FREE in the "wild" west. You have the same issues now as you did back then but with a Government that wants to play God.

No, not corruption. A lack of consequence for doing whatever the hell they wanted

[Schillinger]

No, not corruption. A lack of consequence for doing whatever the hell they wanted

Yet there was a police force in these towns, were there not? The local sheriff is corrupt, he gets replaced. It's a simple act, most of the time. On a national level, the corruption just breeds until it's out of control, much like we have now. What consequences do big corporations have when bypassing minimum wage by shipping American jobs to Asia? Oh right, they get tax payer funded bailouts to fund opening plants in China like GM and the result? Detroit goes bankrupt. Raise of hands, how many here think GM or government is going to be held responsible? None, right.

[Underverse]

Yet there was a police force in these towns, were there not? The local sheriff is corrupt, he gets replaced. It's a simple act, most of the time. On a national level, the corruption just breeds until it's out of control, much like we have now. What consequences do big corporations have when bypassing minimum wage by shipping American jobs to Asia? Oh right, they get tax payer funded bailouts to fund opening plants in China like GM and the result? Detroit goes bankrupt. Raise of hands, how many here think GM or government is going to be held responsible? None, right.

That's simply due to a lack of consequence - which is exactly the same situation as the "Wild West". Our modern "Wild West" is just hidden in skyscrapers