Is anarchism a valuable political ideology?

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?

 

It's a valuable ideology, with practical application - but not necessarily a good representation of utopia as many people seem to think.

 

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?

 

How I see anarchism follows:
1.) Someone decides they want to overthrow the government so they gather followers
2.) They overthrow the government
3.) The people start starving because they're busy doing whatever they feel with the freedom they have
4.) The original person who decided he wanted to overthrow the government (or another) is given a little bit of power
5.) Naturally, he's corrupted and forces the people into slavery/bondage
6.) The people see their faults.

That's how I assume the Anarchy would play out.

 

I'm pretty sure the government isn't the reason people go to work, but rather because they want to get paid so they can put food on the table...

 

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.

 

If you have no taxes, you have more money. You spend the money on health care from a private provider. With government health care gone, you would most likely see a significant rise in competition from other health care providers. Like Tyro stated, charities would see a rise and so would other medical staff.

 

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.

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.

 

"The point to remember is what government gives it must first take away" - John S. Caldwell

If people would be ok with giving all the power to one person, then they wouldn't have started an anarchy in the first place...

 

???

If there was no state people would suddenly stop working? non sequitur much?

 

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)

Yeah, it makes me wonder why exactly people moved from an original state of anarchy to governments, and if that would happen again.

 

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.

 

Oh yeah! For a second there I had forgotten Moses and those darn ten commandments were conjured up in Biblical City Hall one frosty afternoon.

 

Um, if someone tried to forcefully assert command over a group in an anarchy, that guy would be filled with bullet holes very quickly. You have forgotten that there was a time when self-defense was the responsibility of the actual person other than some corrupt law enforcement group. This actually worked out very well since criminals didn't even commit crimes due to the risk of their victim pulling out a gun and popping their brains out.

You don't seem to understand how people work. Creating these things you call "groups" is exactly the reason why few people are able to acquire so much power. If you have a bunch of individuals who think for themselves, there is no way one guy is going to be able to round them all up like sheep and control them.

 

did a paper on anarchy wanna see wut ppl on the net assume about it so far its amusing

 

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.

People have opposite wants and needs, and you can't please everyone.

 

You've already managed to strawman the idea of anarchy....it just means without rulers.

 

Pure anarchism is impossible to exist in practice. If there is no government or laws what stops me from forcing people to my will.

 

Ummmmmmm, I don't know....oh wait, what if I do not oblige?

And about for the hundredth time; anarchy does not equal lawless society.