After speaking with several of you here it is clear that less government is best... but no government? How would the world look?
I offer a couple views below from people on each side of the issue:
Pros: It would be utopia. Worldwide anarchy is something to strive for. It would not be utter chaos, and to think so just shows how little real thought was put into this. To describe anarchy as chaos means you had your first thought, "There would be no laws or authorities," and came to your first conclusion, "Everyone would run amok," and then just stopped thinking. There are still consequences to your actions in anarchy, but most people would still live peaceably. Everyone would be their own police. If someone decides there are no police, so they're going looting, raping, and killing, they would quickly learn how much more effective free people are at being their own police. If there's one thing the government can do, it's mess everything up. Jobs would still be there, but you wouldn't have to work for less wages than you want, and you would not be obligated to "give" the authorities their "piece." If they were truly, inherently your authorities, then they wouldn't NEED anything from you to maintain their position. Thinking this way, you realize that all authority is illusory in as much as it is voluntary.
Consider all the things that CANNOT exist in anarchy:
Any kind of discrimination cannot exist. That's right sexism, racism, homophobia, religious persecution, class warfare, and any kind of situation where one group belittles another is not possible unless that group asserts some AUTHORITY over another group. Yes, individuals can still harbor ill-will to any group of people they want in anarchy, but without any irresistible force to impress their will upon others, there are no teeth in the -isms.
Corruption. That's right, it is not possible for governments to sell out their constituents, accept bribes, write themselves in pay raises, murder their people, spy on their people, etc if they don't exist.
Full scale war. Some disputes may arise, but millions of people going to war with tanks and bombs and nerve gas? Most improbable. Do you know how many people it takes to run one aircraft carrier? Now consider that every one of the people with the competency to operate it would have to get together as a team and they must ALL BELIEVE IN THE CAUSE.
Cons: It would be hell. Not everybody can help themselves. A thought above is that everyone can be their own police, but what about the people that obviously cant? Handicapped people, or the elderly for example. What are they supposed to do, band together and try to defend themselves? Wheel chair armies? I don't think so... Someone may not like every thing the government does but they still need it. The same way someone doesn't like every thing their parents do or tell them to do they still need them.
The anthropological and archaeological record says no we cannot thrive without a government. Humans are as a species, genetically programmed to be gregarious. They are programmed to form groups which turn into organized hierarchies of power and influence. Primatologists know this, and the archaeological record shows clearly that man has, since the beginning, been a species dependent on one another for a variety of reasons, whether it is to gain benefits by exploiting common resources, or by mating within the species. It's only as we move into higher organizational forms that politics come into play and disagreements about resources emerge. But the reality is, we have had organized structure since we began either by elders or by brute competition. We would not survive without it.
Conclusion: There are plenty of great places to start if you want to read up on different perspectives on anarchy. In the spirit of anarchy (and true freedom), I will make no recommendations here. Go and get a taste of freedom and believe whatever you want. Read things supporting anarchy. Read things against it. Read nothing. As long as you are not mired in the lives of celebrities, the outcomes of reality TV or the "contest" type shows, or a slave to internet porn, then you are advancing yourself and contributing to the intellectual growth of our species.
Good for you.
Sources: http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-life-without-government-possible
FYI,,,, NO GOVERNMENT WOULD BE CORRUPTION ON A WHOLE NEW LEVEL.. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK TO ANY 3RD WORLD COUNTRY TO SEE HOW BAD IT CAN BE.. LOOK AT MEXICO,,, DRUGS, RAPE, MURDER ARE RAMPANT ,,, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW DRUG CARTELS WOULD QUICKLY RUN OVER PEOPLE VERY QUICKLY ONCE THEY START ARMING THEMSELVES.... WE NEED PEOPLE TO WATCH OVER THE COMMUNITIES.... PEOPLE NEED TO BE PAID TO DO THIS AND THEY WONT DO IT ON THEIR OWN... ... IT WOULD BE A WORLD OF VIGILANTE JUSTICE... WE NEED POLICING,,, AND WE DO NEED GOVERNING TO KEEP THE EASILY CORRUPT PEOPLE AT BAY... OTHERWISE NO ONE WOULD WORK,,, THEY WOULD STEAL AND MAKE QUICK MONEY LIKE THEY DO IN AFRICA, MEXICO, PHILIPPINES, RIO,,, NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANY SOCIAL PROGRAMS OF ANY SORT..... MEANING NO SOCIAL ASSISTANCE,,, FOOD STAMPS,,, OR EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE,,, OR EVEN A PENSION FOR THAT MATTER.... ILL KEEP MY GOVERNMENT,,,, YOU KEEP YOUR CAOS
I agree. I think government should be as small as possible. However, you make some very good points why one is needed.
On a side note, why use all caps? It looks like you're yelling ;)
orion your very uneducated in this.
how do you think governments started?
they started by people coming to gather as one then they chose to dump the responsibility on a few people.
if you think anarchy is a world wide thing then you do not have any idea wtf you are talking about.
here are my points
1 if you know about drug cartels then you know they bribe the Mexican government as well as a lot of others.
2 you mention you think WE NEED PEOPLE TO WATCH OVER THE COMMUNITIES i agree,but anarchy is the absence of rulers, not rules its a whole community protecting its self and not for money but because its right.
3 what you describe is what is already happening with all governments even the usa. anyone can discover that by doing some research.
4 tell me what makes you feel safer you neighbor having your back if you are attacked in your sleep, or cops coming after your dead. by your logic you would like to have complete strangers come to your aid(slower then the people around you too) then people you know in your community. this would build trust and reliance between people in communities you will become your own protectors all one needs is the proper education
First off,,, ACES beat KINGS and JACKS.... Second,,, I can barely understand what you are writing in paragraph 4,, and you call me uneducated,,,lol... FYI,, YOUR neighbors Will not help you if you are getting robbed... YOU CAN RELY on them to TAKE OUT A CAMERA and FILM YOU DIE,,, but that is about it.... They will not get involved WHATSOEVER....
You are obviously in your TEENS,,, or in your early 20s at best. I can tell by your LACK OF LIFE EXPERIENCE.... You only have to watch an episode of COPS to see how many people will come forward when someone gets shot... Who do you think will solve THAT CRIME??? The people who don't want to get involved because they are AFRAID of RETALIATION?? Or the COPS whos job it is to CATCH YOUR MURDERER..... NOW!!! Would you like any more LESSONS, from this UNEDUCATED person????
Ok so who sets those rulse? What one person agrees is a "rule" the other may not... what then?
It has always been the ELDERS who set the RULES of any COMMUNITY... Usually the WISE,, the MATURE and the PERSONS who have shown themselves to be the MOST HONEST are usually the people you would ask to,,, set the RULES as you would put it....... That way you would have a chance of having a more transparent GOVERNMENT...
I agree but in anarchism where everyone is their own master, what happens if they disagree with the people being chosen or disagree with the rules they are implementing?
I don't think many anarchists actually view it as a perfect cure-all for the problems of the world. Most of us don't believe it will create utopia (or that such a thing is possible.) Anarchy just gives us the freedom to work out solutions for ourselves without the violent oppressors forcing their "solutions" onto us.
Good point
look anarchy is not some rock solid solution you have to make it a solid solution.
all the things you have just in Consider all the things that CANNOT exist in anarchy can still exist in anarchy. its all in how much you put into it
example one way would be to set up a temporary government to create an education system(publicly controlled of course) to teach children moral's and skills that will make them grow in a fun and free way not some cookie cutter schools.
with this simple approach you have a very flexible way to grow in any direction the people choose. the possibility are endless with this approach
and add Cognitive psychology which is the scientific study of mind and mental function, including learning, memory, attention, perception, reasoning, language, conceptual development, and decision making. The modern study of cognition rests on the premise that the brain can be understood as a complex computing system. throwing this in there will allow a natural block of psychological control(they will know when they are being used)
ok government is just a lot of people you realize that right??
this is the same damn thing just with out rulers,not without rules.
I'm not sure that is the case... who sets the rules?
the people du
the people must agree through vote the idea most anarchist have is a community ran country not a government ran country ,everyone has a say, there isnt just a few people who make the call for all of us like government .
Ok so rules get set based on a majority vote? That means others that voted against but weren't in the majority get rules imposed upon them that they didn't vote for.... right?
logic will be applied use some common sense damn.
look its simple logic+knowledge=good
you cant even think a head can you? this is boring.
no wounder you havent got a vote you never did any real research.
1 you need to dive deep i mean very deep there are many kinds of anarchist out there
*the crazy
*violent(not what its a tall so posed to be about)
*the thinkers(people who think it through on how to start and continue the idea from there there is no end there is an infinity of possibility)
*the posers(people who say there all for it,but are not)
2 dont just consume and spit out think it over let it digest and form an opinion ,and brainstorm how its can be possible(and use a lot of philosophical thinking)
3 next time run it by actual anarchist before you post and make your self look incompatible of critical thinking.
please reply if you want i love good talks
I never stated it was my views, i just pulled a couple ideas presented by both sides of the argument. That is clearly stated in the post, and it also states where those thoughts came from in the source section.
I think you misunderstood thinking these are my personal views.
look im not the best at saying what i mean but the fact that you pulled it of others post is one of the problems you must form your own opinion to help enrich the ideology and help other in some way, not create some Frankenstein for other peoples post it is to unpredictable it can lead to a great post or a very negative post .
if i were one of the anarchist with a more limited mind set you would be getting harassed dude .
luckily they haven't really found this site yet
and plus the side that is normal against anarchy isn't really to good at even trying to understand it,or how it can be possible.
and yes i agree most anarchist are not to good at explaining there points or beliefs.
thats mainly because we are to use to being shut down or at least the ones i know of.
Harrassed for what? Ha!
It wasn't posted off of another's "post", it was from a website, which was linked at the bottom.
I posted both positives and negatives that many people have expressed. It is meant to stir a debate about which really is the better system, unfortunately there is no way of knowing because there will most likely never be a true anarchist worldwide environment so it is impossible to predict the unforeseen outcomes.
To be honest I'm not even sure what your point is besides bashing the initial post over and over again even though I have clearly responded to your supposed offenses...
the positives and negative very on how you do it why is it so hard for you to get that?
see you haven't responded to my question about your views.
"i just pulled a couple ideas presented by both sides of the argument. "
get off your high horse you moron
if you got it from the internet its a dame post
*ok so in other words you just did this to get votes.
*you have no opinions or views.(you haven't answered my questions about your personal opinion which leads me to believe you have none,and that tell me your know nothing.)
*and this which is very clearly bullshit
I think you misunderstood thinking these are my personal views.(to me this means your an idot)
also what are your views? kinda wish i asked before the other posts
First of all your posts have been presented in an attacking fashion and I am this close to reporting you. You can have a civil debate without name calling, getting personal, etc.
Secondly, I stated early in a comment that I think the best course is to have a government but to have as small of a government as possible. Yes there are negatives to having a government but between the 2 evils I chose that one.
haaaaaaa your so said you would rather report person then try to make sense out of them how mental lazy.
No I'd rather have a debate about the topic without name calling and personal attacks.