Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The other day, I saw this twenty-something year old Gothic man who was beaking off about Anarchy and he said something along the lines that he felt the government was oppressive and fascist, almost demanding and imploring their beliefs on everyone else. Isn't Anarchy that was itself? Trying to place some sort of belief system that no rules or government should exist? It's a very unstable system, in my opinion.

But ... Do you think that Anarchy itself also shows some oppression and such because they wish everyone would follow THEIR beliefs as well?

Discuss.

But anarchy is built off the idea of everyone having the freedom to do their own thing, without the restraint of a government.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
But anarchy is built off the idea of everyone having the freedom to do their own thing, without the restraint of a government.

Exactly, but do you think Anarchism would be stable? Also, isn't that an oppresive Ideal in itself? They're forcing people to do as they please!

The hypocrisy of anarchy? Please. What about the hypocrisy of Catholicism, the hypocrisy of the republic, of democracy, of monarchy, of communism, of Islam, of Fascism, and the list goes on....

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
But anarchy is built off the idea of everyone having the freedom to do their own thing, without the restraint of a government.

Actually, I understood the concept to be without the restraint of a government. I could be wrong...

I do think that under such a system, that factions would inevitably form; pockets of 'communities' would become closed to those that have not contributed to a particular community, by, for example, labor or intellect or simply because they do not agree with the ideals of the leader, (communities invariably have a leader, of some sort,) and then of course, there will be the renegades, the non conformists, factions within a faction, leading to dissent and aggression... I simply can't see the concept of Anarchy being a viable solution to anything!

The idea of Anarchy is simple to do away with anything that would be constraints on someone. Religion, government, etc are dissolved and people are left to their own devices. Law is based on a "Higher Law" or "Natural Law". For example, it would be immoral, and this illegal, in an Anarchist society to horde and waste resources because there are people who could have used those resources.

How this is supposed to work, I'll never know.

The absence of government would work if people weren't inherently stupid

Anarchy most certainly wouldnt work in a previously capitalist country

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Anarchy most certainly wouldnt work in a previously capitalist country

A capitalist society is much closer to Anarchism that any other.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A capitalist society is much closer to Anarchism that any other. A democratic society is closest to Anarchism. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean democracy.

Originally posted by Marxman
A democratic society is closest to Anarchism. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean democracy.

I do know that. I meant Capitalism though. Free market and all. No oppression. Anarchist....

Anarchy=state of nature
Anarchism=principaled absolute democracy theorized by John Locke, William Godwin, and Pierre Joseph Proudhon.
Russian Anarchism=violent, anti-semitic variation of anarchy theorized by Mikhail Bakunin.

Originally posted by Strangelove
The absence of government would work if people weren't inherently stupid

Not true. Everyone would still want to do as they please. If someone else who does what they please didn't like what that person does, they'd complain. Then a fight would break out.

In the end, Anarchy is a ridiculous idea that cannot possibly be stable.


Originally posted by Lord Coal
The hypocrisy of anarchy? Please. What about the hypocrisy of Catholicism, the hypocrisy of the republic, of democracy, of monarchy, of communism, of Islam, of Fascism, and the list goes on....

What the hell are you going on about? All of those are irrelevant. I'm talking about Anarchy here, not all of those. If you want to talk about the hypocrisy of all those, make a thread.

Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism makes more sense then Anarchism.

The only way Anarchists are "hyprocritical" in the way you're describing is that the people who enjoy having a state to rule them wouldn't get their way. Anarchist theory hinges on the idea that Anarchy would work and could produce a liveable society, not the idea that it would result in absolute chaos. What Anarchy would actually result in is a different matter completely, but nobody supports a political theory that they don't think would work.

Frankly, I don't see your point, as the same thing you're saying about Anarchy is true of all political systems that are supposed to foster liberty.

I think its unlikely that anarchy would work. People like social strucuture and group responsibility (government) because it provides mutual advantage for everyone.

No government is perfect, but its more effective than no government.

Maybe so, but at the same time, "hypocritical" is hardly the best way to describe it.

Most people believe that Anarchy wouldn't work... But those who do truly believe it would be a good thing.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think its unlikely that anarchy would work. People like social strucuture and group responsibility (government) because it provides mutual advantage for everyone.

No government is perfect, but its more effective than no government.

The problem of Anarchism is that it will lead to governments (just like it did as we can see in our world).

That mostly happens because of one fundamental wishp of people, not to be harmed and killed. Which is why that is the usual task of governments, all other things just came in because someone wanted more than the others without doing anything for it.

That is also why I believe socialism to be a bad idea.