What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

I would like to add that the major cities and larger communities also have very small "sub-cultural" groups which act within the larger. Even more, these sub-cultures are broken up into smaller groups of cliques. Because of our need to be near water and a good food supply, have certain types of land for cultivating crops and enough rain fall to sustain a healthy, refreshed water supply, we have had to move into cities of larger population. This forced an evolution of sorts but still has not removed our small community habits as we still try to keep things small and close. I may know hundreds of people but I only spend my time, on average, with a small number of them.

I would like to add that the major cities and larger communities also have very small "sub-cultural" groups which act within the larger. Even more, these sub-cultures are broken up into smaller groups of cliques. Because of our need to be near water and a good food supply, have certain types of land for cultivating crops and enough rain fall to sustain a healthy, refreshed water supply, we have had to move into cities of larger population. This forced an evolution of sorts but still has not removed our small community habits as we still try to keep things small and close. I may know hundreds of people but I only spend my time, on average, with a small number of them.

In the words of Aristotle, "man is a political animal". It is human nature to seek society with others, and government by law is necessary in any sound society.

Naturally, someone will always in fact govern over the governed, and individual liberties will be sacrificed to some extent. Yet society and government have won out over anarchy throughout human history; the benefits outweigh the costs when you are a member of a good society.

Two things:

1. Anarchy is an idea to completely free society

2. Because Society is a collection of individuals, Social Freedom is unlikely.


But that doesnt mean Anarchy is Hard to accomplish. It is only hard to establish.

As for the problems people have with Anarchy. They need only to look at the idea and how it would reshape things that they dont want changed. thats the hard part. After this, then can you only see what anarchy could be about. Thats when you make a statement on your final conclusion.

Systems are only replaced out of short sight, and fear.

You have a good point in saying that it is not hard to accomplish, only to establish. It is an impossible task to establish because it would have to be global. But at the same time, I live as an anarchist everyday. I live in a place with rules, sure, but I choose which rules I wish to follow and which ones I don't according to the punishment that I would have to deal with. Anarchy does not state that there will be no consequences for your actions. It is quite the opposite actually. The consequences for your actions could be vastly more severe because your punishment would be handed out by someone else who was not regulated by anything other than the consequences of his actions. So how I live today is really no different from being in an anarchistic society. Even today, a man could freak out and shoot me without warning. It may even be safer in an anarchistic society in the sense that there would be much less stress from social obligations forcing people to lose it.

that is the problem, although anarchy is the one sure way to ensure that government control does not encroach on the rights of humans, our civilization is built off of one concept, ownership. Laws against theft in any way shape or form have been present in every culture and every religion in the world, even communist societies believe in state ownership of all things, and it is this contract that allows us to flourish togethr, because it allows us to make maleable and flexible territorial boundries, but boundries nonetheless. to quote the poem, good fences make good neighbors, and that is the concept behind ownership, established boundries. the anarchist, in his pursuit of freedom and justice, would do away with such santions, because it is the job of government to both protect these sanctions from those who would plunder that which they have neither created nor purchaced, and to limit such ownership to the extent that no human may own another human, it is from this basic exchange that all disputes and ordinances arrise, and it is this exchange that is the cornerstone of civilization

It is so refreshing to finally meet someone else who understands Anarchy the same way that I have come to.

In order to provide for one's own ends, one must recognize and respect the ends of others. This is why order is spontaneous in an anarchistic society.

It is hard to put this thought into action in a society that refuses responsibility. Not to mention the current emphasis of hierarchical societies will not allow for the adaptability necessary for spontaneous order. The way in which society educates its citizens is key if the society wishes to be anarchistic. Democracy is an obvious characteristic of an anarchist society, but the problem is getting the common people or masses to build up the proper character for the society to flourish.

I was very surprised to hear you discussing anarchy in this manner.

How did you come to form your views?

Typically anarchists are too concerned with ideas of equality and capitalists are too concerned with absolute property in the traditional sense for either side to come to a sustainable idea of anarchism.

It is hard to put this thought into action in a society that refuses responsibility. Not to mention the current emphasis of hierarchical societies will not allow for the adaptability necessary for spontaneous order. The way in which society educates its citizens is key if the society wishes to be anarchistic. Democracy is an obvious characteristic of an anarchist society, but the problem is getting the common people or masses to build up the proper character for the society to flourish.

Oddly enough, this falls under a strange category in my brain of things that just make sense. I can't really tell you where they come from because these ideas don't seem to have any substantial roots. They just occur to me.

As we said, anarchy is a system that would be almost impossible to implement in the current society. This is also a system which is apparent in the current society. The hardest part about all of this is quite simply that people would have to take responsibility for their actions. There would be no fall back, no fail safe. You would be in complete control of your own life.

I disagree.

The private individual can protect his property and has done so in the past. In fact, when we consider the nature of an economy built upon a specialized division of labor, respect of property rights becomes materially beneficial to all, and while there may be aberrations, this will be recognized by most.

Foremost, we should not make the mistake to assume that government assumes the cost of protecting property. It is always the productive member of society, the worker and the risk taker, who assumes the costs of property protection, with government being a manner of socializing these costs. It is an irrevocable fact of government that these costs will never be distributed fairly, and one cannot look at the current system (or any of past times) and not determine that the use of government for redistributing these costs has been a method of enforcing economic stratification.

Bailout anyone?

I think you took his idea out of context. Government does not protect directly but Indirectly with laws.