Can Anarchy do better then laws in a country?

Hopefully one day people.

But spend an hour or two on these boards reading various threads where the contributors are some of the most open minded and free thinking individuals around will prove to you that we just aren't ready for it yet.

reply to post by charlie_the_loafer

anarchy no , as many people shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves.

So what is new? That's what TPTB want right now and have for a long
time. No one thinking for themselves wouldn't create a need for anarchy.
I know you said "some" but if the big dogs had their way totally, "none"
of us would be able to think for ourselves.

As far as anarchy goes, I believe it would turn into a highly lawless
society. You definitely would see gangs roaming the streets kicking in
doors and attacking people and stealing whatever they want without too
much worry. They only thing they would have to worry about is the
typical gun owner that won't put up with any of their crap. That is why
anyone who has a hate for guns, or are afraid of them, or have never
been around them and don't know much about them, should really think
over the possibility of buying at least a .22 calibre rifle with a few hundred
rounds of ammo and learn how to shoot it, and get over the fears.
Anarchy may indeed be a thing that will hit this country. I hope not. But I
know I am prepared for any of these thugs and it won't be a pretty sight.

Anarchy in my opinion will be a terrible mess. The only law abiding people
will be sort of like the law abiding people we have now. There won't be
much change. They will have to keep a constant watch over the criminal
element that will undoubtedly run amok everywhere trying to get what
they feel they have been cheated out of in life. They are the ones who
will be breaking the laws. I am going to be hunkered down if it happens.

reply to post by paraphi

Sorry, but anarchism is a theoretical form of government. By theoretical read unattainable.

I do not argue with your use of theoretical, only that you imply that it is a theoretical form of government- government being the world that I have a problem with. A government is an organization or agency that exercises authority. Authority is in direct contradiction to anarchist theory.

There does not seem to be a commonly understood interpretation for what anarchism is, but in my book it is society without authority.

See, you basically confirm what I was saying that authority is in direct contradiction with anarchist theory, no matter what form you choose to look at.

I am afraid that in human society there is authority, either explicitly, or implied through act and intent.

I don't argue with that at all, you are 100% correct. That is what all schools of anarchism unite under, the false notion that someone or a group can exercise authority over the individual without moral justification.

If you disagree then maybe you could - in your own words, and concisely - say what anarchy is from where you stand and (more importantly) how it could work in a society full of different people.

Anarchism, from where I stand, can only exist for the individual and through the individual.

As for how it could work in a society.. it can't work in a society until the individual understands that at it's core is not merely freedom.. that is the fun part, that is the easy part. What is failed, even by most anarchist is to understand that with that maximum freedom you hold maximum responsibility.

Anarchism is true democracy. Democracy in today's world is only mob rule. Today's democracy has no way for the individual to dissent and deny the moral justification of the collective [society] to make decisions that will effect the individual.

It is Utopian, and for all practical purposes, undo-able. It is romance for the soul. I do not argue for anarchism as our system, I argue for it merely as an individual that denies any authority over my life. Anarchism can only work in evolution.. never though force or collapse.

I would argue that no ideology is perfect, as we are all unique.. that is why I say that anarchism is the only morally justifiable way for a society to maintain order and any form of structure.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Hopefully one day people.

But spend an hour or two on these boards reading various threads where the contributors are some of the most open minded and free thinking individuals around will prove to you that we just aren't ready for it yet.

Exactly.

Anarchy allows local thugs & whatever 'decency' there is to battle it out within the community.

paraphi:

But isn't the "criminal elite" a "self-organizing element of society"?

Ouch! Touche' on me.
You are probably correct.

I theorize that living under a single tyrant may be easier in most cases than living under multiple competing, battling tyrants.

Iraq is a case in point. I have no idea how things will turn out there, but at least under Saddam they knew exactly which dirty way is 'up', instead of living in the midst of vicious chaos.

One of the things that may have helped American economic vitality is the steep inheritance taxes.
So it is the people who do the work [&/or lies & corruption] get the benefits, but not so much for their progeny that as of yet has not shown that 'initiative'.

it helps avoid [generational] entrenched slackers, like me.

Ideally you need a kind of 'selfless' government.
That only happens in fairy tales.
The ultimate ideal would be radically intelligent as well as selfless.
Doing exactly what would have substantive benefit & no more.
it might have to give a little slack to inspiration, but that could be the off-ramp to the freeway to hell. not sure about that.

I will say that our government is getting so rotten & corrupt that anarchy is gaining credibility.
Eventually when they bankrupt the nation it will turn into anarchy anyway.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by slank]

reply to post by slank

Anarchy allows local thugs & whatever 'decency' there is to battle it out within the community.

Someone's been watching too many Mad Max movies..

Peace.