Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Small localized government and extremely small if even non-existant federal government.

All well and good until you want someone to fix the highway....

aint my responsibility...

That's exactly why this sort of system would not work today. There is no sense of comunity and owernship these days.

And that Highway would be fixed by the local government programs set up to take care of these sorts of things anyway.

~Keeper

Wait a minute here.

Anarchy can be used for a lot if different ideologies.
By definition it means without ruler.

For me this means there will not be a force or institute standing above you. We are all equals.
I think this does not mean they can be no basic agreements as a form of law.

I wouldn't think of killing my neighbour to steal his land. Anarchy usually includes a violence free, ideology.

My neighbour is my biggest ally, helping out. for mutual benefit.

Maybe the question that everybody has to ask first.
Why is anarchy such a strange word, being used for two opposite ideologies.

My experience is anarchy is usually put in the same context with chaos.
Usually adding a little warning or bad thing happening when anarchy is labeled.

Governments do not have a real scientific based reason for this.
A true anarchy based society has never existed.

They also don't want to loose their jobs of course.

How people survived in stone age. In present day rain Forests. It is the unity that makes you survive. There must be rules/law. But the application must be unbiased. Not favoritism. When the Government is bailing out their buddies on our expense. It cannot be acceptable. Or when Bush get away with crimes and small person go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread for survival. Wasn't it that Clinton do away with welfare for families and yet the welfare for big Corporation continued. No. This is not acceptable. Not every body is smart. But when you chose anachy or a Manager to Manage a groups necessities. Then that leader or manager must perform their duties per wishes of the people for the people. Even if that happens to be the President of the Country.

I don't think it is a good idea, for anarchy being to intertwined with socialism.
Of course we as a community, should aide and help our. people.

This is not for some lazy ass bums, expecting. to be taking care of.

I will leave such a fool die in the gutter he ended in.
Anarchism also makes one responsible for his one life ways and everything.
Just because you #ed up does not mean you deserved to be saved.
This will also be the choice made by one who wants to.

Although you seem to mean well phlynx, i must admit that after reading your posts it seems you are most certainly not an anarchist, and dont even want a truly anarchistic way of life. (not attacking you just my opinion)

Anarchy from what i understand and invision is where every man (family), basically looks after themself, without authority, no leader and certainly no police force.
I dont think this could work in a 'modern' sense, think about going shopping in an anarchistic world, it would be chaos.
We would need to go 'back' a few steps (not necessarily a bad thing).
Each person would need theyre own piece of land to try and create theyre own self sustained living conditions, probably using techniques like permaculture and farming.

Also as others have stated you would need to have some sort of mutualy beneficial relationship with your neighbouring anarchists, possibly through the trade of supplies or some level of joint protection of eachother (you scratch my back i scratch yours). But like Sinter Klaas said:

This is not for some lazy ass bums, expecting. to be taking care of.

You would help your neighbours if in the future they would be able to return the favour, like wise, they would (hopefully) help you if you could later return the favour.

But honestly i dont think this will ever happen on a global, continental or regional scale, we are to much of a violent, short sighted species. But it does make an interesting discussion.

In anarchy, what will prevent power from falling into the hands of the few - people with resources, power, or charisma that are able to rally others around them, and then simply forming governments all over again?

Anarchy to me seems inherently unstable - how would it appear in a stable state?

Double post !

My bad !

[edit on 7/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]