Is anarchy a bad system?

Well, I talked to a guy who was an anarchist, and I was surprised what most anarchist supporters idealy have. Considering what society depicts anarchy as, I'll let you all comment, and let readers know what I'm talking about the view and ideals people have about anarchy.

I will post what the guy said later.

No anarchy is not a bad system at all....I mean you can love your country...but hate your government. There is nothing wrong with that...well as long as you don't become a rightwing anarchist. Then you might as well be considered a terrorist. But as for me...well being a soldier in the army...I don't completely hate my government, but I love my country.

I have to agree with this. It's not bad at all!

Anarchy like communism isn't that bad of a system in theory. But the way human's are there are always those people who seize power and do bad things with it.

Anarchy isn't a system. A system is characterised by order. Anarchy is characterised by chaos.

Anarchy pros:
FUCKDAPOLICE OH YEAH
Anarchy cons:
*gets beaten up by thugs* Someone call 911!

That's where society has made us into believing that anarchy is a bad thing.

What anarchy really means is say no to leaders, where they believe that no one should have more power than another, no domination over another person. In theory, they aim for a direct democarcy on a comunity level, where everyone has a say.

Compared to our modern social system? I would pick anarchy, our modern system now is full of greedy and corrupted pig politicians.

If I may intersect, this is just an idea:

Anarchy is only an ideal.

From the beginning of times, humans have tended to conglomerate and form groups. When these groups are formed, a natural hierarchy of the strongest emerges, just as it always has in nature.

Deriving from this, and from discoveries made by archeologists, it can be concluded that even in these early societies, closest to anarchy than any today maybe, every individual functionned for the survival of the group, and "directives" were formed by the groups hunters or strongest.

It is only a hypothesis, but it can be thought that early men never resorted to anarchy, because it would have meant anihilation in a harsh and unforgiving world, against which the paleo-humans could not fight.

Today, the same "every man for himself, every man with his own laws" system, can not function. if such a group were to appear, it would for one part be marginalized by other societies for its rashness and unpredictable, dangerous components, and for another it could not possibly survive because it would not be able to coordinate itself sufficiently to do so.

The human being is a selfish thing, and it is rare that in a society with no laws and no government, equilibrium can be reached. I would tend to say (in my humble opinion) that anarchy always tends to fall into monarchy or communism, but there has never (in my knowledge and in the research I've done, which is not absolute) been a anarchist society that could survive on the same level as a modern society of democracy or even constitutional monarchy or monarchy.

The human being on its own can not function, it is inherently a social animal, as Freud would say, and it cannot express this social component to its full extent in an anarchist society, because its ressources, of intellectual and physical nature, would go to waste.

Humans alone cannot function, just as bees cannot function, or ants or termites, because even if in a group, if too many divergences appear, nothing will be achieved and the group will perish.

So in conclusion of this talk, I would say that anarchism is but a dream of teenagers rebelling against parental law, thus against the system, and that see in anarchism the Utopia of the "No law under the sky" system that they wish for.

But the simple fact that anarchism is not viable, proven by thousands of years of civilisation, where anarchism has been disproven as a sane choice for the survival of the human race, excludes that it would be a "good system".

On a personal note, I wouldn't like to live in an anarchist society except in the situation in which I wield a ten foot katana and can throw fireballs.

Good day to you.

How would anarchy work seriously. It has inefficient dispute resolution and decision making systems even in the very smallest of communities, let alone the huge cities we live in nowadays. (we no longer live in agrarian societies!) How would the military work without leaders. Leaders are representatives of the people. How the heck do we communicate with other countries without leaders?! And how would rights be enforced e.g. private property. How do we deal with criminals? How about unrest?

I am very interested in how anarchists would solve these problems without the help of leaders. The delegations of authority to leaders make the efficient functioning of large societies possible.

What i hate most abouth anarchist is how they are paranoiac , how everything is a conspiracy from the gouvernment . It's not society that made me beleive that anarchy is a bad thing , it's from my free will , thinking abouth it and comming to the same conclusion than Gubi . Anarchy lead only to chaos , human nature cannot live in an anarchist system since it has not evolved this way . An anarchist system is nothing more than an utopia that maybe someday , far from now , we will achieve but it is so far from us that even thinking abouth it is ridiculous ....

If you believe anarchy is bad then it is bad. If believe it to be good then it is good

Based on what I know of anarchy it sounds like it would be a good system. However I don't think humanity has evolved either mentally or technologically to the point where it would be feasable. The great majority of people are good and there are more than a few saints wandering about the earth doing great good but there are still a number of evil people. And while there are fewer and fewer evil people as time goes on there are still too many to make an anarchy society possible.

I once had a disscussion with my uncle about this subject and he said the same thing, and added that based on humanity's current rate of progress it would be ready for something like anarchy in about 40,000 years from now. I'm a bit more optimistic about that figure but I don't think we'll see a functioning anarchic society even in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

Being an anarchist doesn't mean you/I/others believe in conspiracies, quite the exact opposite, as most tinfoil conspiracy theorists are scared shitless of the government, most anarchists are very sceptical when it comes to tinfoil conspiracy theories and don't bat an eyelash to such nonsense. And also, not all anarchy leads to chaos, take the French Revolution and the October Revolution, the French Revolution lead to a new form of government called a republic, which is much better than a monarchy in their case, and the October Revolution, another fall of monarchy, which led to a new political ideology to be put to practice.

Then it may be possible that anarchism could have been a temporary system, used as a transitional means by populations in times of crisis.

Which is logical, because in all the cases you cited, the government was either dead or being challenged.

So maybe a few good points for anarchy because it leads to sustainability after people saw what it was like.

First i didn't say that being an anarchist mean that you believe in conspiracies , it's just a reality from many previous anarchist with who i talked with . (it's not the first time i debate anarchy)

Second thing is : in your two exemples , anarchy was only a phase to get another gouvernment , a better one , aren't anarchists looking for long term anarchy since they don't believe in any type of gouvernement ?

I don't understand how you interpretid what I said as being paranoid, and believing that it was a conspiracy. I'm talking about what society made it out to be, no the government. Pretty much, I'm talking about human nature, where we take another persons word, don't do our own research, and then totaly misunderstand a subject. It's like rumors and gossip, they be true, but most of the time, their false, often blown out of proportion of what happened.

And in your later post, no, anarchist do believe in a government, just one that we find very difficult to see functional.

No, anarchy is not the best, because there is no authority to protect our liberties. If you look at Somalia, Anarchy ultimately leads to divided sub-factions.

Let's forget the first point since it's irrelevant , but the second interest me a lot . Normaly , anarchists wish to live in a total utopic world where all humans coexist with no gouvernement at all where everyone has suprem freedom . If it's not that , then what would you like the world to be as an anarchist ? What is this non-functional gouvernment you are talking abouth ?

I never said I was an anarchist. I just found it interesting how popular belief made out anarchy as total chaos and "the devils playground".

Anyway, from what I gathered from the guy who informed me, the more organized anarchists believe in a direct democracy on a community level. Pretty much, they believe that there would still be a government. The thing anarchists oppose isn't government, but rather leaders. Anarchy is a very old concept, and was around since the time of hierarchy, where a king was superior just by birthright.

In short, these people disagree with domination, where one person is 'better', or 'dominates' over another. This very ideal goes for a large variety of things, such as racism, sexism, exploitation, and banditry.