Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For most of the time humans have existed, for tens of thousands of years, there were no governments.
True, there were no formal governments, but there have always been tribes and tribe leaders and "enforcers" and people who ran the show.
My experience has been that, overwhelmingly, there are fare more follwers than there are leaders and the majority of people WANT to have someone tell them what to do.
Anarchy would be interesting. I think the herd would be thinned pretty quickly.
" Would An Anarchist Society Be The Closest Thing To Heaven On Earth ?"
It would never happen because the first requirement of anarchy is people with independent minds. Most people are conformists and want to belong to the herd.
Yes. I view it as a valid liberty trade-off. This is an acceptable trade-off in the eyes of those who put liberty ahead of safety, and who hold it ethically axiomatic that safety should be subordinate to liberty, liberty should not be subordinate to safety. This should not be taken to mean there is some liberty to harm others, since ethics does not r evaporate from the human equation (unless for some reason, the world suddenly turned into a bunch of moral nihilists), not under anarchism, not under any system.
I consider it better to be unsafe than "un-free," especially when the degree of risk I often see presented as a worst case scenario is well within the range of acceptable parameters for me. I accept the risk, because (a) life inherently involves the probability of risk every microsecond of every day of your life, and this is just a fact people need to com to terms with and hedge to the extent they feel is within acceptable ethical parameters, (b) because there are ways to hedge those risks that don't necessarily revolve running to "governments" (in their current form), and (c) because as mentioned previously I hold it as axiomatic that safety is generally subordinate to liberty.
Some hedge the risks by ceding their liberty to government, others choose not to get locked into that false paradigm, as if to believe the fallacy that there are no other options with which humans can avail themselves. Human ingenuity is nearly boundless, there are almost always 'other ways.'
Perhaps start with the concept of polycentric law, as proposed by numerous legal philosophers, an alternative which should be within the "comfort range" of people who believe in government (esp. limited-government). It presents a very "government-like" and "law and order-like" approach, working largely within the framework of the law we all "know and love," but simply has fewer monopolistic elements to it that don't run afoul of certain property rights principles and other ethical conflicts.
Government exists for utilitarian reasons, to handle certain problems. But it is merely one utilitarian solution amongst an infinite sea of utilitarian solutions.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 06-06-2011 at 08:27 PM..
Would an anarchist society be an utopia where there would be very little crime, murder, rape, rioting, looting, and invading of people's private property ?
No, and I can't even vote in your poll b/c I disagree with the reasoning. Why can't we just stick with Yes and No options?
No, it would not be "utopia" or "heaven on earth." Rules are there for a reason. While I don't believe we need a whole host of laws to tell us how to live, we do need some basic laws that guide humankind in their daily lives and make America a place that thrives.
What? All of those things you listed would be common place. Anarchy means no government and no laws. What would keep people from taking everything you owned? If it was like that I would walk right into your house fully armed and just take what I wanted, maybe even your wife.
Careful. For a lot of men, that would be a good thing.
Do you think there are that many people who don't commit crimes only because we have a government?
I wouldn't rob or kill people with or without government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
