Topic: What are your thoughts on Anarchism? (Read 431 times)

Unfortunately, you're right. I don't believe anarchism may result in something good at the present stage of human race development. It'll take years and years.... I wish I could live until that dream becomes a reality

From Wikipedia, Anarchy:
From Wikipedia, Anarchism:
Check the sub-links in both Wikipedia entries, above. The similarity seems to be statelessness, with both having free association of people at times. The difference is that the associations are formal with anarchism, but informal with anarchy.

The difference with libertarianism is that it can have formal government with liberty/freedom as the complete goal:
In the USA, we have the right to form private associations for just about anything. This right is almost the greatest right that we have, next to the right of private property. Government doesn't control this right. We have it outside of government, and government even upholds it by many laws and court cases and basic writings. The only thing that government requires is that it is a formal association.

In other words. In America, we automatically have anarchism and libertarianism.

Youtube search on "freedom to form associations."

The Best Kept Secret of the Legal System

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13OHj_2TOOA

Note that most people think of anarchy and anarchism to be wild, uncontrolled living. While it can be, it isn't necessarily that. It can simply mean freedom to live as one wants, and most people don't want lawlessness in their daily lives. Rather, they want freedom from government, along with right living. Anarchy and anarchism can be this kind of freedom life.

Anarchism is an activity that in my opinion is an activity that does not need to be done because it does not have a positive aspect, and only leads to violence can even be more severe namely murder,

Maybe in some perfect place where people live in harmony you dont need laws, jails and other punishments ,but in our world where we live their need to be laws i definitely think that chaos woud be unavoidable without laws ,there would always be a lot people that want to have control over a neiberhood or village or city or state and here you go war is everywhere

anarchism wil last exactly for 0.00000000001 seconds, then there will be businesses and farming corporations (root of societies economy) that form protective interest groups and their interest becomes new rule of law.

People always want to learn the rules. Why? If they don't, they starve. Belly pain is some of the worst kind.

In anarchism, people still hunt, eat, grow gardens, live in houses, make and drive cars if they want, etc.

The difference is that they are free men and women, and they know it.

Anarchism and libertarianism are similar... in practice.

Anarchism is uncontrollable, supporting the elimination of all coercion. It is often seen as a kind of extreme liberalism, regardless of national issues. Thus, states often forbid these movements, except for anarchist movements that respected the Constitution.

Well some would say it depends on the type of "Anarchism". Either it would be a world full of hipsters or actual chaos. Both would probably lead down the same path. If you want to know what a society run by anarchy looks, look at places like Venezuela and it gives you some idea of what will eventually come. 

my opinion about anarchism is a group of people who do not want to learn the rules, and have their own thoughts and do not want the legal institutions that govern their lives and obviously this is very detrimental, because if the world without rules will cause chaos

What are your thoughts on Anarchism?


Anarchism is what most governments are made up of. Sure, they state that they are a republic, or a democracy, or a monarchy, or something. Then they go out and steal property from their own people, make wars, and fight among themselves in anarchistic ways.

No government is far less anarchistic than government. How do you know? You know it by the fact that you obey all kinds of government laws that you could easily get away with disobeying. Yet it is governing people who disobey the laws and never get punished. Simply Google "pedophiles in government."

Though is there any society which is so advanced that has been able to develop, or continue to develop under this sort of style of government? I don't think this has been the case, nor it ever will be.

I don't think Anarchism is able to support the advancements of society which have come so far -- some may say this is possible, but I personally just don't see it.

It may work on paper, and people may want it to occur -- I just don't see it as the correct way...

I agree that humans seem to spontaneously form governments. Even in small groups, people seem to choose a leader. Either that or the leader just chooses himself and nobody complains. I'm wondering how the parenting part and crime is connected to anarchism. I guess that in anarchism there wouldn't be an official punishment for crimes. You are concerned that if there was not judicial system, criminals would be rampant? I agree that children who are raised well will be more likely to do good as adults, but how does that relate to anarchism? Wouldn't that be true in both anarchism and other political systems?

Idealistic anarchism sounds like a dream, but in reality, I fear people are far from being highly self-organized creatures ready for it. Should it become the reality, it is most likely to be a total disaster. I know someday people might become so civilized that anarchism may become a standard and totally safe practice. But this might happen (if it ever does) like thousands years from now.

anarchism is a wrong view in my opinion, where a country and society must have a leader. a leader who can protect, help, love and serve his people. Anarchism can indeed be established in a country if there is something wrong in the structure of state leaders such as unjust leaders or leaders who forget their people. so that everyone becomes upset and does not want to be led or told by the leader. so for leaders who do not have the ability, you should not be a leader.

I believe that Anarchism is an unhealthy type of government in which there is a stateless society and a freedom. It is more of lawlessness within a country. Freedom is good and exactly what we want. However, freedom should not be absolute and should not be abused. Freedom of an individual must protect also other's freedom. If ee are all free to do things that we want, ultimate chaos will be produced. Imagine that we all have greater range of freedom, then we may all commit crimes. Anarchism them will be used as an advantage for the unrighteous people to abuse others and do larger crimes. Thus, we are not protected. Our freedom will not be fully enjoyed eventhough it is less limited.

Under anarchism, I understand above all the political doctrine aimed at undermining state power. How can you be an anarchist, if you are a philosopher, I do not understand. For example, you talked about friendship: is friendship possible between a man and a woman? You reasoned like a philosopher, but where in this reasoning is the place of anarchism? Similarly, the state: the rejection of the state by the philosopher - a normal thing, but still it (the state) must first of all be a unit of analysis (even through overcoming the rejection), and not overthrow.

to deny every authority on every condition.. So what about law? crime and Punishment?
the world is not a good place,  I accept that politics, states, and money patrons are not good.
Every person has the right to own property. I believe it is.

Anarchism can be understood as a general social and political thought expressing the denial of all power, sovereignty, dominance and hierarchical divisions, or in other words, a thought that desires life in the absence of a rule of law within the limits

Humans are tribalistic. We form hierarchical societies spontaneously, so I don't think anarchy would last long before being replaced with some form of government. If anarchy could be sustained then I think it would fail for the same reason that every other system of government has failed: We are inherently are selfish.

Crime is punished to disincentivize crime. Unfortunately, high-profile criminals often outrank the courts of law. I think that good education and parenting are excellent methods for decreasing crime. Children who understand morality will often carry those morals throughout their life, or even expand upon them   I suspect that a child who is treated with fairness or respect is more likely to treat others with fairness or respect.

I don't think it is the best form of government. Since in an anarchist form of government where it involves a stateless society and freedom to everyone, it might cause a lot of problem. Instead of making the society in good, it might cause some loss of order in society. I think that crimes would go higher.

Anarchism - is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.

The description itself sounds so chaotic. Evil people will definitely take advantage of anarchism. We might go back to "the strong will live and the weak shall die" era. Nobody wants that to happen.

my opinion of anarchism is that people can do things freely there are no rules and ideals can coexist peacefully with all other people in a social system and then maximize individual freedom and equality among individuals based on voluntary cooperation between individuals or groups in society. naive indeed and like me, like a peace-themed film this is probably not going to happen because on the basis of its human being is a selfish creature.
 then if the world can walk with system or anarchism thinking, the world will be chaotic because human beings on the basis of its selfishness unless we can put aside individual interests as possible world will happen peace, anarchism is not free freedom. that's just my way of thinking

Tv series like walking dead etc. have nothing to do with anarchy and anti-authoritarian self governance.

Just watch 'The Walking Dead', anarchism is not sustainable, it is in itself self depreciating. It can only become a living example of the saying 'Survival of the Fittest', and this leads to the conclusion that the fittest become leaders, by whatever means. Anarchism has it's dubious short-term benefits, but as a societal solution, not so much.

I'm an anarchist. I'm proud of it, but very, very few people are willing to live the way I do.
Anarchism means no income tax, but also no welfare and no national health insurance.
Most people nowadays couldn't live outside of their nanny state's umbrella. I think it's very sad but that the way it is, and it's only getting worse. With each new government, countries only get mightier and mightier while individuals are turning into sheep.

Well, my country has been in the state of anarchy before and it did not offer anything good to the country. Evolution is a component of every developed country which i think is achieved through laid down rules and regulations. Leaders are needed to formulate plans and policies which lead to the development of every society or country. Anarchism can not bring any development to any country.

It is true that the leaders are needed, but to prevent anarchism must begin with education so that all understands the law and wants to obey it. Because usually anarchist action is mostly done by people who are less educated and do not understand the law, so act alone without considering the existing law.

People don't need a single leader. There were societies governed by elders and they functioned pretty well.


Anarchism wouldn't be able to sustain itself. At least that's how I see it. At some point people would start to organize themselves into groups because it would be easier for them to steal from others in a large group. At the same time others who would prefer a peaceful life would organize enclosed societies that would be able to defend better against those attacks. At some point the society would grow so much that it wouldn't be possible to rely information and coordinate everything without people who would dedicate their whole time to this task. That's how local governments would emerge.

I would just add that people always need a leader, someone who will take a responsibility for their decisions. Besides, our brain is made up in such a way that we strive for organized structure.
People who support anarchism are just tired of the existing government.

That most people have no idea what it is.

The thing about it is, the world would still function, it just wouldn't be as organized. There would be a ton of chaos, and anarchism isn't exactly sustainable, it's in human nature to form societies so over time you'd see governments form again.

I don't think so, too much freedom will absolutely bring chaos. Even though some of the governments control our moves, we still need them to keep the society more livable.

Depends on the type of anarchism, the world can work with any type of political or social society the main question is what it would look like, I highly doubt many people would be living enjoyably.

I'm wondering what are people's thoughts on anarchism, could the world function if anarchism became a standard and what would it look like?