Would anarchy really work

A good friend of mine points out that Italy has been doing fine, for years.

The title of this thread is just unutterably hilarious . . .

Is anarchy inherently unstable
for lack of co-ordinated defenses ?

Anarchism can only work if people are, on the whole, good, just as libertarianism can only work if people are, on the whole, rational. That's why neither anarchism nor libertarianism are viable political systems.

By definition, anarchy can't "work."

It can be a viable state of affairs.

It can be a state of affairs.

Whether or not it is viable depends upon your definition of the word.

It cannot work, because anarchy is the antithesis or working.

There is a point when then iconclast becomes a boor.

Where did you get that idea?

I am almost positive that Finn gets his ideas following a careful gathering of all available information, meticulous analysis and well reasoned processes. Never have i seen any indication of Finn resorting knee-jerk reactionary conclusions.
Sincerely, Gabby Hayes.

I think real anarchy is probably very hard to maintain and inherently unstable. This may sound unreasonable given that randomness and chaos would seem to be the natural state in physics.

However, for most biological systems including human civilizations and society, interactions and order, provide benefits to collections of organisms, so "systems" in various forms tend to arise as a natural function of improved survival.

Human beings are more prolific when they live in groups, and within groups, natural systems of interaction (anti-anarchy) tend to form. So ultimately I don't think pure anarchy will "work".

I know that answer is probably more vague than you were looking for, but I think it still applies.

I guess even in the absence of law and order it's human nature to follow the alpha dog. There was order before the constitution and there will be order after.

Let me answer this question in the spirit of Bill Clinton: It all depends on what you mean by "anarchy" -- and what you mean by "work".

I used to be an anarchist . . . but no one ever showed up for the meetings, so i gave it up . . .

I don't think anarchy is the absence of law and order, I think anarchy is the absence of superfluous law and order.

Anarchy would work just fine if there was sufficient structure to not need it

You're right. As the American Heritage Dictionary puts it, anarchism is "[t]he theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished". Anarchy is about the absence of governments. It isn't necessarily about the absence of law and order. Indeed, anarchists have invested a lot of work investigating how to maintain law and order without a government. You can argue whether their investigations have turned up any viable alternative to what we now have. And there are perfectly reasonable people who would say that they didn't, including myself. But if you dismiss anarchism, you have to dismiss it for a better reason than a false conception of what it means.

In countries with very capatalistic systems such as the U.S. economic systems would still flourish. Business' will continue without government intervention. As long as business' survive and supply people with their needs, one can expect stability.

Some folks (liberals, usually) regard anarchy as the same as chaos.
It is not.

Anarchy only means no government.





David

With the "happiness is a warm gun crowd" on the loose, anarchy would be chaos . . . QED.