Anarchy is a necessary evil

Anarchy is the best form of government.

Why?

Because no government works, therefore anarchy, the absence of government, is the best form of government.

Compare anarchy to the limited government principles America was founded upon. In anarchy, if two people fight over a square of land, the strongest man wins. In a limited government, the government has the duty of enforcing contracts. If the government is too limited, anarchy will prevail. If it is a strong government, the government becomes a third party, at which three options can take place

1. the government gives the land to the morally right party
2. the government gives the land to the morally wrong party
3. the government takes the land for itself

Imagine you are a person fighting for a piece of land, and the government comes in and gives the land to your enemy, that would be worse than if it was a state of anarchy where you alone have to fight for your land. The government is a second army for you to fight. In the very rare case that the government helps you, obviously you will like this, which is how government gains a foothold. However, if the government helps only itself, both you and your enemy are now enemies of the government.

No matter how you look at it, anarchy, while not perfect, is a necessary evil.

Consider the Von Mises Institute of privatization with limited government. Limited government is like a Sheriff waiting around at the station for clues to come in about a bandit. Without the will of the community, they are nothing. And so limited government is dismissible on the grounds that it is only as powerful as the individuals in charge of the government, which when you think about it, is a form of anarchy itself, since anarchy is totalitarianism by each individual person (everyone has a will without any unifying order). Anarchy is superior to government because with government, one person is the dictator, with anarchy, all people are the dictators, so it is more fair. Not perfect, but a necessary evil.

Complete privatization is nothing more than anarchy. Imagine if Wal-Mart and Target had free reign to compete however they wanted with each other. They could wage war on each other, or against their customers. Anarchy. But, there would always be some form of control, namely in their own organization. So a limited government always naturally forms within the realm of the individual. This is caused by the limited free will of the individual. Each person has a share of skills and power, and that is the only form of government in existence.

But as for a world government platform, in deciding to call it a Republic or a Democracy, it is better to just ignore the platform altogether, call it anarchy if need be, and rest assured that each person performs according to their own needs. Anything more would be impractical.

All forms of welfare are reserved towards the strong giving to the weak out of good will, and not forced compliance. All forms of crime are given by the strong upon the weak in ill-will. This is not perfect, as the weak are preyed upon, but it gives the weak an incentive to become strong, whereas welfare would perpetuate their helplessness. Thus, anarchy is a necessary evil. The true form of government (since all governments fall upon the individual, subject to his own will against the will of every other in a state of chaos), and anarchy is the best morally for those who are weak, to encourage them to become strong on their own, rather than on the dependence of a third party that works on its own interests and could possibly want to perpetuate the weakness of the population.

The point is, governments will always form because weak people need to unite together. But strong people will always be self sufficient, and so anarchy will also reign. It is a clash between collectivism and individuality, between government and anarchy. Both take place in the world at the same time. Anarchy, surprisingly, the more natural.

I sympathize with your point of view. I hold out hope that if people properly cultivated an appreciation for the spirit in every human and thereby the golden rule (natural law) and used that as a measuring stick as to what was acceptable and what wasn't, the world would tend to remain just. The problem I see, is that for as long as we know of history, people have always been lead and abused and in particular by the dominant big guys. The closest thing to what your saying is the movie "Off the grid: life on the mesa" which is a documentary of people who've really had it and are fed up, managing their space without the cops. In fact when the cops intervene it's clearly a case of their committing criminal mischief.

Anarchy, ideally, is taking out the trash, but in reality is another scripted, managed event. The problem with the "strong" winning, is that it becomes the "strongest" and most selfish desires that tend to win. The goal of "Civilization" should be respecting the spirit in the individual and cultivating tolerance for people to do as they like within their own space and doing no harm to others. This includes not promoting brainwash degenerate philosophies and manipulative goals against others.

There is no justice in the uSA today simply because of the Bonded court system. Every "felony" conviction is an income opportunity for the state. Judges are paid kickbacks for convictions. Lawyers are both sides are encourage to hide the truth and play along. Criminals sit in jail for profiteering. Such a system is completely incapable of every being fair, unbiased and objective.

I think you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Anarchy has nothing to do with what you are saying. I would know, I am an anarchist. You seem to believe that anarchy is the implementation of the law of the jungle. I suggest you read up on what anarchy really is. For a start, people have to be ready for it. Meaning they are educated enough not to make war on each other for petty things like personal possessions.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Ismail]

Originally posted by Ismail
I think you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Anarchy has nothing to do with what you are saying. I would know, I am an anarchist. You seem to believe that anarchy is the implementation of the law of the jungle. I suggest you read up on what anarchy really is. For a start, people have to be ready for it. Meaning they are educated enough not to make war on each other for petty things like personal possessions.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Ismail]

if you consider yourself an anarchist then explain your position.

Anarchy is 'an' = not, archy, as in hier-archy = system, thus, anarchy means no hierarchy. No system.

Pretty amazing perspective of anarchy in the OP. Funny how the intellectuals interpret it.

If you care to view anarchy in its bitter reality, take a quick trip to Somalia and report back on your findings.

Govt. or no Govt. Rest assured that there will always be those who desire the power and authority to control the weak.

Originally posted by ReelView


Anarchy, ideally, is taking out the trash, but in reality is another scripted, managed event. The problem with the "strong" winning, is that it becomes the "strongest" and most selfish desires that tend to win. The goal of "Civilization" should be respecting the spirit in the individual and cultivating tolerance for people to do as they like within their own space and doing no harm to others. This includes not promoting brainwash degenerate philosophies and manipulative goals against others.

How can anarchy, a system of no rules, be managed?

Tolerance is fine, so long as it is not forced compliance of tolerance. How is it tolerance if I am forcing you to tolerate? Which is the sole purpose of the government, to force compliance and tolerance, their tolerance, none others. Thus, government is not tolerant, it is intolerant. All forced tolerance is actually intolerance.

First off, Anarchy isn't ANY form of government, it's the absence of government.

Secondly, it's not an evil. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is as it is. Anarchy can be set up in a very civil, ordered, community-based way. It can also be unorganized, & uncivil.

If one were to pick a form of government and call it evil, that would be ALL governments. Govern-Ment. It has two latin roots. Govern means control or authority. Ment means thought or mind. Governments literal translation is authority of thought, or mind control. eeF that !!

The difference between a government and a community based in anarchy is that a government has it's power centralized, while a community based in anarchy is entirely decentralized. This gives the power back to the individual. Anarchy is actually ideal, guys We've just been brainwashed to think otherwise.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by jibeho


Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Ragnar Danneskjöld was a pirate that seized ships. His philosophy was that the government is only powerful because it uses force. John Galt used passive resistance, d'Anconia used his wealth and the manipulation of ignorance, while Ragnar used force. Each philosophy worked within itself. After Ragnar stole the gold, he returned it to Hank Reardon, as a payment for back taxes Hank paid to the government. Thus, Ragnar was a pirate with morality.

Somalia can be seen in the same way. What if these Somali pirates are using their stolen oil to help their own country? Somalia is one of the most starved and depraved country in the world. And this is not just by accident, but through globalization of the third world. Nothing surprising with this, as it falls into the system of anarchy of the strongest survive, and so now the Somali pirates are devastating people more so than the Taliban. Why aren't we having a war on pirates if Somalia's anarchy is so dangerous? Perhaps because it's easier to bomb Afghan civilians than organized crime?

The only reason America became such a powerful nation was because the limited government was more or less anarchy. This gave the people the freedom from the intrusions of government.

reply to post by filosophia


What about just a system where there is no government (as in anarchy), when a person reaches adulthood (18) they are required to sign a citizen agreement form which list all the obvious things that one should do as a citizen and shouldn't do by moral right. They have two choices, sign or don't sign and if they don't sign they are not permitted to become a citizen and need to leave the country. There can be a 'task force' of sorts that keeps the peace.

Best I can think of at the moment.

Originally posted by unityemissions
First off, Anarchy isn't ANY form of government, it's the absence of government.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by unityemissions]

As I said, No government works, anarchy is literally no government, so anarchy is the only form of government that works (meaning no government is better than a government).

The default government is simply the will of the individual, which is anathema to the collective will.

reply to post by filosophia

anarchy, while not perfect, is a necessary evil.

What about it is evil?

reply to post by sirnex


the problem with this is that a task force becomes the most powerful force. The problem with a set of rules is that how long does this list have to be? What if the list prevented you from retaining the fruits of your labor, or being able to protect your children? Either the rules are super long and complex, like religious rules, and they no longer become relevant, or the list is too small and people can break the rules through the omission of certain crimes.

As I explained, in anarchy, two sides fight over the same piece of land. If the government gets involved, a third task force is needed. In the small chance that the government benefits the morally right party, the government is good, but the other two options are benefit the morally wrong party, or benefit itself. Thus, it has a 66 percent chance of doing the wrong thing, as opposed to 33 percent chance of doing the right thing. If we were in public school, the government would get a solid F minus.

Governments act like benevolent rulers so they can give themselves more power until they are arresting people simply because they can not follow the rules they created. A government grows until it becomes a problem unto itself, whereas anarchy would be a more fair system.

The other thing is, there is always anarchy, even with government. Okay, so we have a three party system in America. Great, but what if the president decides to just do as he pleases (as they usually do). That breaks apart the system of government, thus it is anarchy. Another example, we follow the constitution, but not always, thus the government system falls apart and anarchy reigns.

It's like trying to stop people from breaking laws: you can pass all the rules you want, but guess what, they'll still do as they please.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by filosophia

 

anarchy, while not perfect, is a necessary evil.

What about it is evil?

It is evil in that a strong person can steal from a weak person. Out of this compassion for the weaker person, people come together to form government, or at least believe government is necessary. But, the government then gives welfare to the weak, encouraging them to continue to be helpless, by encouraging them not to work for a living but depending on the state. So that means anarchy is the lesser of the two evils.

It's not really evil, but natural. The "law of the jungle" as they say, there's nothing evil about a predator eating a herbivore, there's only an evil in government helping the predators devour the prey. But, since people will say that it is evil to let the strong survive, I say that anarchy is a "necessary evil." It's a nonsensical statement since evil is not a necessity, anything that is a necessity is not evil. But, since the common argument against anarchy is that the strong will dominate the weak, it's good to say that anarchy is a "necessary evil" in order to help people understand that although crime may still happen, it will be resolved more naturally than if a third party with conflicting interests gets involved.

reply to post by filosophia


People associate anarchy with something it isn't (much like communism, actually). Anarchy today is viewed by most as synonymous of chaos. This viewpoint originated in the 19th century, when some anarchist organisations attempted to destabilise european governements though terrorism.

Anarchy does advocate the removal of governement. Because individual freedom is hindered by governement. Anarchists believe that it is down to everyone's personal responsibility to abide to certain rules of "living together", and that state-made laws are couter-productive, because they are arbitrary and not originated in or though out by, the individual.

However, this does not mean that "society" breaks down. On the contrary. Because in an anarchic "system" the individual becomes far more "responsible" towards others, he will realise that his own survival and well being is directly linked to the survival and welfare of his fellows. He is no longer arbitrarily lumped together as part of a group that is forcefully united under a flag, but able to choose his "group" and define the basis of his own interactions with others. This would lead to various forms of organisation (probably the federation of regional groups). Society exists, but every one individual has no more power than any other. Each person makes his own decisions, and proposals to society. There are no votes, or anything like that. It is a system based on information. If I say I want to build a bridge, and three other people out of one hundred say they want to help me, we build the bridge. It is not "our" bridge, we do not own it, we just created it. Anyone can use it. If someone likes the idea but can't or doesn't want to help, maybe he'll give me some potatoes, or a few planks. Or nails. And most people will, because it will be in their interest for me to build the bridge.

The absence of money in an anarchist system also changes a lot of things in the way people interact with each other. It's far too complicated to explain how it all works in a post like this. I'm just trying to say that Anarchy=Chaos is a misinformed point of view.

If the subject interests you, you can read up on it. My other point is that people need to be ready for Anarchy. And most of them are obviously not. The mere concept of abandoning money sends most of them running.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Ismail]

reply to post by filosophia

It is evil in that a strong person can steal from a weak person.

That's not really an attribute of anarchy. Strong people can steal from weak people if you have government, too.

it's good to say that anarchy is a "necessary evil"

But it's wildly inaccurate. Anarchy is neither evil nor necessary. Why not say it's better than the alternative? Isn't that what you really mean?

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by filosophia

 

That's not really an attribute of anarchy. Strong people can steal from weak people if you have government, too.

One could even argue that it happens more in a "traditional" system, because society tends to stratify itself more. People can occupy positions of power, which they cannot in an anarchic system.

reply to post by Ismail


Anarchy always looks great on special utopian paper. Assuming of course that the entire nation is on board with the philosphy. Unfortunately, it does not factor in human nature and the notion of survival of the fittest and the fall of the weak.

It is impossible to simply replace organized govt. with that of an anarchistic system in our modern society. You have to begin with anarchy in its pure definition to achieve success. Even then you have to overcome the natural desire of those who wish to be the Alpha in that society. Even in the wild, there is order and control in the most primitive sense. It is our nature. Just study a pack of wolves or a remote jungle tribe of humans who have never been influenced by a modern govt.

Hence, the lack of any present day success of true anarchy.

reply to post by LordBucket


I think you are reading too much into this. I believe evil is philosophically nothing, so in other words it doesn't exist. And I also think that anarchy is better than a system of government, so obviously I am for anarchy not opposed to it. Why did I name this thread "anarchy is a necessary evil?" Mostly to pander to the masses who will no doubt respond by saying that the strong will devour the weak. If this is evil, then anarchy is a necessary evil.

Anarchy is like the wild west. There is still crime, there is still murder, rape, theft, and because there is no government to institute laws, it falls upon the individual to right the wrong. Thus, anarchy is really just individualism. But if you are debating someone who thinks government is necessary, and they argue that anarchy breeds a "Somalia type atmosphere" and if they think this type of atmosphere is evil, then anarchy is a necessary evil.

reply to post by jibeho


It's not about establishing anarchy, which is impossible since anarchy is non-establishment, it's in realizing that we already live in a state of anarchy.

We supposedly live in a society of laws, but the law makers are above the law, so it is dictatorship upon the people, thus, it is anarchy in that the elite have free reign on the people. The only counter force is the free will of the people. Thus, whenever you have two sides fighting against each other, the stronger force prevails. That is the system of Nature. So, aside from the natural laws, the sun, the earth, the moon, the hands, feet, limbs, brains, minds, etc, you don't need any further system of government. Which is why anarchy is the best form of government since it is no government.

reply to post by filosophia

There is still crime, there is still murder, rape, theft,
and because there is no government to institute laws

But with government...with laws...you still have crime, murder, rape and theft. Government does not accomplish its intended goals.

I think you are reading too much into this.

No, I'm simply objecting to you calling anarchy evil. It isn't.