The fallacies of anarchy as a viable system?

I've been reading a lot of anarchist stuff recently, and boy does it need debunking.

I just can't fathom the idea of 'everyone just getting along' - can you?

And what other problems does this idea have - I mean the semi-ordered anarcho-syndicalist variety here, not the Somalia type.

For example, if one company decided they didn't want to play ball, then what?

 

Anarchy is it's own self contained contradiction and self defeating.

Here's the problem, if a group of people wanted to form some sort of government, and the Anarchists formed a group to oppose, you know what that is?

It is a form of government, just not a very organized one.

Because they got together in a group, discussed what should be done about a problem, and acted ipon a decision.

In essence, that's the basics of any form of government, regardless if tyranny, regardless of how organized it is.

Thus they cease being anarchists.

So the other problem is this: they can't do nothing because then the other people form a government. So again, anarchists are defeated.

No, I just can't see anarchy as a viable system. It's fine for an individual who doesn't want to be government, but when you live in any country with a government, you are governed, or you go to jail, or, as with here in America, you live off the grid.

So really, it's not a viable solution.

I really can't fault them for not wanting to be controlled by an obtrusive government though.

There they have my sympathies.

 

ok, for sure - but lets say it came into being, then what would stop one group, person, family, taking more than they 'needed'?

 

There are two types of people in the world.

Those with guns.

And those who dig.

It would be like the old west, in other words. Those with biggest guns and the most gold win.

 

There's another way. Simply stop participating in the 'for profit' world of corporate America.

 

There's nothing wrong with making a profit. That in and of itself is not necessarily an evil vile thing that socialists make out to be.

There's everything wrong in trying to controlling everything and not letting anybody else have a profit.

 

Your message seems to be mixed. I agree that making a profit isn't inherently the problem. In my view, the problem is, greed, plain and simple.

 

I don't disagree.

99% of everything in government boils down to that.

Greed and lust for power.

And nobody giving a damn about the little guys who get stepped on.

 

That needs to fundamentally change if we're ever to recover, as a society, and as a country. Will it? I seriously doubt it.

 

Anarchy is like a child who wants the adventure of "running away from home", but thinks wrongly that some magic force will still support them, give them food and shelter.

 

Anarchism is an ideology so stupid that it doesn't even need debunking. Any rational person already knows that anarchism is a horrible idea.

 

The operative word being "rational". This place proves every day that there's no shortage of people who aren't rational, and who, if left to their own devices, would just love to try on anarchy. And just like in the real world, if there aren't enough adults in the room to keep the irrational from having their way...well, you know what happens.

 

i don't want to live in an anarchy.

I prefer to try to resolve differences with reason and conflict resolution rather than by resorting to violence.

Plus, I'd like a system where I can have my grievances addressed.

And I'd love to not worry about if anybody walking down the street is gonna shoot at me for not having the right color of hair.

 

The 'magic force' is supposed to be the Syndicate, and Confederation of Syndicates. But what is to stop one syndicate from not playing by the rules?

- - - Updated - - -

In reality, yes I agree. However, I would like to debunk it in theory - for example, how do we differentiate between need and want?

 

No. Anarchists believe in the non-agression principle. If people voluntarily get together to solve a problem, that's not a violation of that principle. Anarchists aren't saying that everyone should be on their own all the time, they are saying that there shouldn't be any agressive force in relations between people.

Such a group, formed on and maintained on a voluntary basis, would by the way not be a government. A government needs a monopoly of force. Governments are inherently about violating the non-aggression principle.

One of the benefits with anarchy would be that people like you who want to make sure everyone "just has what they need" would have much less chances of making it so...

Calling greed the problem is pointless. It's part of human nature and you can't change it. Talking about greed all the time as if we could change it is one of the worst things.

edit: All you people are approaching this wrong. Anarchists aren't saying everything would be wonderful without a state, they are saying it would suck, but not as hard under governments.

 

Do they also have a book called "Serving Man"? Hmmmmm.....

 

and what's stopping government from using its power for evil and self interest (not "playing by the rules")?

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

While the news media and the government misuse the word anarchists to no end to sell papers, some anarchist groups do get violent. I'd bet that if either of us did some searching, we could find some articles on how vilent some groups got in their protests.

Secondly, there's no such thing as a non aggressive government. All governments are aggressive in some way. Others, like America, Great Britain, so on, are Imperialistic, meaning they want to increase their empire and history shows the atrocities each government committed in the name of whatever.

I'd like to be in a non aggressive country, but I really don't think there is such a thing.

 

See, that 'can't change it' part is what perpetuates the whole corrupted system of greed. We can't fix it so, let's just keep going, business as usual. That's why I say the whole thing needs to come down so it can be rebuilt.

 

Multilayered and co-dependent institutions and sytems, plus the belief in these concepts.

With anarchy, little of those would exist and society would soon crumble into a free for all.

 

Anarchy flat out can't exist. Due to human nature, someone always end up in power somehow.

 

Sure they do, but they justify is as being defensive force. The state is opressing them, therefore they have a right to use force in return. Anarchism is founded on the non-aggression principle.

Yes, that's what I said. All governments are founded on force, which is why anarchists don't want a government. Voluntary co-operations are not governments.

Of course you say that, and so did mao, lenin, hitler, pol pot, stalin, robespierre and lots of others. Haven't you noticed the pattern? Tearing down what works to replace it with that which sounds good doesn't ever end well.

 

Well, so far these days, the only thing that seems to be 'ending well' is the obscene amount of corporate profit and the disgusting disappearance of the middle class. I can't expect those that are thriving from this kind of corrupted system of economics to want it to change though.

 

Do you prefer gulags over "corporate profits"?

 

but isn't the premise of an established anarchy to have no central power/no leaders?