• I need three reasons why anarchy won't work.
    45 replies, posted
Writing some crappy essay, my thesis is that anarchy cannot work in today's society. My three points 1. Freedom of individuals leads to corruption and evil 2. Establishments like hospitals and shit wouldnt be maintained 3. im not good at this and im sleep deprived as fuck, those are the only two decent points i can get from googling. any ideas facepunch?
Not much of a supporter of the state but... 1. The government maintain's order, no gangs taking over towns, etc 2. Taxation allows for services such as Hospitals and Schools to be supplied to even the poorest area's. 3. Regulation is good, people can't read about everything they buy to insure it's safe. 4. The government is the only force that can really uphold contracts. Without it I guess we could use Mercenaries but...
anarchy is lazy and doesn't want get a job
Without a system of law to enforce contracts and ownership, power will inevitably devolve to those with the most force.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;40124013]Without a system of law to enforce contracts and ownership, power will inevitably devolve to those with the most force.[/QUOTE] "To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong should not harm the weak." We need a system of government to maintain society. Without government, who pays for healthcare? Road maintenance? The defence of those not strong enough to defend themselves - be it financially or militarily? Who decides what punishments should be given for what crimes - and who decides what crimes are?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;40124013]Without a system of law to enforce contracts and ownership, power will inevitably devolve to those with the most force.[/QUOTE] this is the same as my first point, isnt it? without laws being regulated to stop criminals, people will do whatever the fuck they want to get by.
[QUOTE=polarbear.;40124122]this is the same as my first point, isnt it? without laws being regulated to stop criminals, people will do whatever the fuck they want to get by.[/QUOTE] To be honest, your first point is very vaguely worded. I could take that as a condemnation of capitalism, or of democracy, or of any system of government short of an absolute dictatorship. And it's a hell of a point to try to prove. Mine was focused on the primary philosophical difference between radical libertarianism and pure anarchism. You're going to have to split one of the two up, because the purpose of a government is a) to provide rules and regulation conducive to civilization, and b) to provide services of universal need. Those are the two points you already have, so you're going to have to split one of them up. I would do so by splitting the first into interpersonal regulations (no murder, no rape, etc.) and business regulations (contract law, fraud prevention, etc.). You could also split it into personal and property rights, or split the second point into social services (police, hospitals, roads) and common defense (military).
1. people would be able to do things that I don't want them to 2. no one would be there to shoot people I don't like 3. people would not be forced to do things that are beneficial to me
In the absence of power, someone will gain it no matter what.
In the absence of a state, Bane will take control and place Scarecrow as judge
People always form their own bodies of government if there's nothing there. The void will always be filled.
Psychology tells us that leaders arise in groups often. Even egalitarian ones (some of which use strict rules to enforce this egalitarianism).
[QUOTE=kaine123;40127176]People always form their own bodies of government if there's nothing there. The void will always be filled.[/QUOTE] This. Even in a group of friends where there is no official 'leader', there's always one person who has much more influence than the others. The more charismatic, confident people will end up taking control anyway over a period of time.
1. An authority-less society is a purely utopical concept and cannot practically exist because there will always be people with more influence than others. 2. There will always be people who will abuse a lack of rules, and most people are just not responsible enough to be purely free (and by that I mean no rules whatsoever) and still be moderate about it. 3. It's a short-termed solution to a much larger problem and will only work at its best for a single generation before its very fundations will cause its downfall.
Peeps would have no reason to make food and the like, other than for themselves, meaning that a hella lotta people wouls starve
[QUOTE=absolalone111;40129730]Peeps would have no reason to make food and the like, other than for themselves, meaning that a hella lotta people wouls starve[/QUOTE] Uhhhhhh What about for the very same reason they do so now, for money?
[QUOTE=JayFeather1337;40129910]Uhhhhhh What about for the very same reason they do so now, for money?[/QUOTE] In an anarchy, there is no money. Who decides what it's worth? Who decides what it looks like? It'd be a trade and bartering system at best, and not many people would think it worth it if their shit can just be stolen with no repercussions.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;40133014]In an anarchy, there is no money. Who decides what it's worth? Who decides what it looks like? It'd be a trade and bartering system at best, and not many people would think it worth it if their shit can just be stolen with no repercussions.[/QUOTE] You don't need a central government to use money. Of course it probably couldn't be paper money, but I don't see why people wouldn't use gold for example. As long as it exists in a limited quantity it would work. And that's beside JayFeather1337's point. People would still produce more than they need to trade it for things they don't produce, even if there's no money. And there would be repercussions, because the owner would do his own vendetta. The investigation would just be less efficient than if it was done by a governmental police institution. But personally I don't think anarchy can work because some people will gain power and establish a government no matter what.
1. People are cunts 2. People are cunts 3. People are cunts Also why Communism doesn't work.
[QUOTE=JayFeather1337;40129910]Uhhhhhh What about for the very same reason they do so now, for money?[/QUOTE] Because there would be no money, there would be no governing body, or organized way of deciding a currencys worth
[QUOTE=absolalone111;40135860]Because there would be no money, there would be no governing body, or organized way of deciding a currencys worth[/QUOTE] Bitcoins are an uncentralized currency, and we could also go by gold. Throwing a dumb at somebody you disagree with is just.. egh..
without law and order, the only property that can be owned is what you can protect yourself, thus the only property you can "own" is that which can be carried with you at all times [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JayFeather1337;40136086]Bitcoins are an uncentralized currency, and we could also go by gold. Throwing a dumb at somebody you disagree with is just.. egh..[/QUOTE] who pays for the servers? who put togather the initial code? who manages it against rapid inflation? its not an uncentralized currency, its just one that has no country attatched to it, bitcoins still need an ultimate manager who can determine its value and who can control it, and it does have such people incharge of it. [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [url]https://bitcoinfoundation.org/[/url] these guys are the owners of bitcoins, they are the ones who ultimately make the coins by providing updates
[QUOTE=JayFeather1337;40136086]Bitcoins are an uncentralized currency, and we could also go by gold.[/QUOTE] Actually that's a valid point that I hadn't taken into consideration. [QUOTE=JayFeather1337;40136086]Throwing a dumb at somebody you disagree with is just.. egh..[/QUOTE] Right back at you, but I rated you dumb not because I disagreed, I rated you dumb because you seemed to have not understood my post.
[QUOTE=Rents;40134478]1. People are cunts Also why Communism doesn't work.[/QUOTE] Is this the reason Capitalism and self interest work so well?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40136598]Is this the reason Capitalism and self interest work so well?[/QUOTE] Yep, the only thing you can rely on a large group of people to do is being dicks to each other.
Anarchy: When you let anarchy take over, you git yerself a Borderlands situation.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;40134395]You don't need a central government to use money. Of course it probably couldn't be paper money, but I don't see why people wouldn't use gold for example. As long as it exists in a limited quantity it would work. [/QUOTE] Again, who decides what the gold is worth? Any currency, be it gold, paper or amusing novelty clocks, is only worth what people say it's worth. Without a centralised system by which this currency can be valued, your piece of gold might only be worth two carrots and a cauliflower. [QUOTE=Kljunas;40134395] People would still produce more than they need to trade it for things they don't produce, even if there's no money. And there would be repercussions, because the owner would do his own vendetta. The investigation would just be less efficient than if it was done by a governmental police institution. [/QUOTE] It's still open to be stolen, and what if Mr. Farmer isn't particularly strong? What if he doesn't have any weapons? What if the thief is well-respected among our hypothetical anarchist society? Farmer Jones is buggered. It all ties into the central premise that in an anarchy, there are no rules, no laws and, more specifically, no way of enforcing them unless you're the strongest. And when the strongest are enforcing laws, that means you have a government. Not a very nice one, sure, but it's a government.
[QUOTE=Rents;40134478]1. People are cunts 2. People are cunts 3. People are cunts Also why Communism doesn't work.[/QUOTE] tbh this is one of the absolutely most braindead criticisms of anarchy or communism
It's sorta funny because i was arguing with my friend about this the other day. He told me anarchy was the best for the people, Then i used an example of how someone could shoot him with no reprecussions and get away with it. He then told me that's an example in all politics, and i gave him another. You get shot, not one person will be there to save you. There'll be no hospital. Then he said in anarchy you'd have those things. Then he told me anarchy refers to anarcho-syndicalism. I just told him that's not anarchy. Basically you have no order. It would work for the strong but never the weak.
[QUOTE=polarbear.;40123933]Writing some crappy essay, my thesis is that anarchy cannot work in today's society. My three points 1. Freedom of individuals leads to corruption and evil 2. Establishments like hospitals and shit wouldnt be maintained 3. im not good at this and im sleep deprived as fuck, those are the only two decent points i can get from googling. any ideas facepunch?[/QUOTE] your TWO points are atrocious. if freedom of individuals leads to corruption and evil then explain how a nation with no freedom of individuals such as North Korea can be so utterly corrupt and evil? you should first start off by defining what the word "work" means in this context anyway, otherwise its a meaningless term. and you can assume that hospitals "and shit" would be maintained because people want them to be maintained, not because the system of government is different [editline]3rd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;40148617]You get shot, not one person will be there to save you. There'll be no hospital. [/QUOTE] this doesnt make any sense fyi hospitals can exist without a national institution
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.