Anarchism has always been a part of human life. The American Revolutionists were essentially anarchists who turned violent and so too were those who fought against Mussolini's fascist party. My question is; can anarchism be supported in practice?
3.) The people start starving because they're busy doing whatever they feel with the freedom they have
I'm pretty sure people go to work because there's a government, but rather because they want to get paid so they can put food on the table...
Although there are benefits of anarchy, there is the question of "government benefits".
Some governments, such as Britain, offer benefits such as universal healthcare. If there was anarchy, what would happen to those kind of benefits?
Although there are benefits of anarchy, there is the question of "government benefits".
Some governments, such as Britain, offer benefits such as universal healthcare. If there was anarchy, what would happen to those kind of benefits?
It really was more of an example of one of the things that can make a society deteriorate, and I'm not even sure if that step fits into it correctly as the future dictator would likely have a very strong following and might just take power at #3.
3.) The people start starving because they're busy doing whatever they feel with the freedom they have
If we acknowledge the existence of power hungry individuals, then why would we make an institution with the power to collect money from the population, the power to force people to do what it wants, etc? Wouldn't it be better to have power completely decentralized so individuals like that would do the least harm? (Don't forget, war is very expensive and unprofitable - making it unlikely for someone to try to take over)My solid opinion on the subject is that Anarchism, like any other government, works until it doesn't. Unfortunately, it starts to fall apart much much quicker then any other government because all it takes is a slightly powerful and power hungry individual to forcefully assert command over a group that isn't governed, and therefore has no defenses, group-wide plans, or anything similar to stop a growing dictator.
Yeah, it makes me wonder why exactly people moved from an original state of anarchy to governments, and if that would happen again.I guess I see anarchism as a pre-phase to any sort of government. The no-mans land in between functioning government command, manipulated by who assumes the empty commanding position.
Anarchism would be as much a dystopia as a utopia, and pure anarchism would not work, since for that state to be reached the whole humane factor of humanity would have to be lost - communication, morals etc.
My solid opinion on the subject is that Anarchism, like any other government, works until it doesn't. Unfortunately, it starts to fall apart much much quicker then any other government because all it takes is a slightly powerful and power hungry individual to forcefully assert command over a group that isn't governed, and therefore has no defenses, group-wide plans, or anything similar to stop a growing dictator.
You've already managed to strawman the idea of anarchy....it just means without rulers.I don't believe in anarchy. The idea that everyone can do exactly as they please contradicts itself. It's inevitable that some people will gain power over other people, and limit those people's freedom.
Pure anarchism is impossible to exist in practice. If there is no government or laws what stops me from forcing people to my will.

