Do you think it's good? Personally i think anarchy is the way to go. I am sick of being told what to and not to do by people who think they have control over me. Leave your thoughts

Anarchy is objectively bad. It is a reset of progress that would inevitably lead to the same forms of governance arising as people seek out means to power and 'safety'. Anarchy where everyone gets what they want is impossible. It just turns to might is right and leaves far more people screwed over than the current forms of governance do. You would be trading 'being told to do stuff' for 'being forced to do stuff'.

I swear people who often are pro-anarchy never really think these things out or are monumentally selfish.

Why is communism up there in the poll?

I guess I'm a more thoughtful anarchist, i just want that the government has no control over what we do because they have control over our lives. Think about it, we have the power to do anything, kill a random person, jump off a cliff, rob a shop, punch that guy with the gay earring. But what stops us? The government, because someone decided it'd be good to give some random arseholes control of our lives.

Communism is up there because it's related to anarchy (in a way)

No, in any real situation anarchy would be chaos.

Edit: I'm glad the government has made robbing people and and random violence illegal.

This is clearly too political. Why are communism and anarchy our only options?

You want to be a Libertarian then, not an Anarchist.

I removed Communism as we have a board policy of no politics as Communism is followed in some places. I am leaving Anarchy up and this thread about it as we have no functioning Anarchist Society, which should tell you something.

If your okay with being [censored] murdered and eaten then you an be all for anarchy. But seriously, any form of governance can work on a small enough scale, however anarchy is self-stylized to only work when you have one person in a community, any more than that one ass is enough to ruin everyone's lives.

It's really cool to think about how cool it would be to not have the system(!?!?) until you have to fix your own road, and your workplace decides hiring armed guards to force you to work is better than paying you. And even if they don't, not paying you minimum wage? No problem, it's not like anyone is there to stop them.

An effective argument for why anarchy is bad. Your examples are exactly why anarchy would be bad. It is a different sort of limitation, one bred through fear of personal harm from others who can do whatever they want. If everyone can do whatever they want, no one can. That is the fundamental flaw of anarchy. If you want to pee in my river, and I want to claim that as my river, I will limit you from doing so, by either killing or hurting you. Maybe even bribing and manipulation if necessary. Because of 'me', 'you' cannot pee in my river. You are being told/forced to do stuff, whether blatantly or with subtlety.

Also, the government has nowhere near as much control as you likely think. A common myth that any government loves to exaggerate. Even the most hard line forms cannot monitor and control as much as Hollywood would have you believe. It isn't physically possible to effectively monitor and control that many people in any kind of useful and far reaching way.

I thought we were living in an autonomous collective

I"m very glad we have governments to stop guys like you from robbing shops and killing random people.

I'm not an anarchist because i think it's 'cool'. I just want the world to be free of the governments rule. I want my children & grandchildren to be able to rule their own lives. I think you're mistaken when you say eaten. Less than 1% of the worlds population are cannibalistic. Even with no government the percentage of cannibals in the world would be under 1% because guess what? Human meant doesn't taste nice. (Not speaking from experience, saw a documentary type of thing where they talked about [censored] like that).

People need to remember that there's a difference in what people mean by anarchism.

One is the political ideology of anarchism as proposed by men like Bakunin and put into practice in Spain for a fair run of time (and engaged in the Russian revolution, but no Bolshevik ever admitted to that). This often involves some form of social cooperation or collective run enterprise, and has subsets leaning towards socialism and others that tend towards libertarian capitalism. In general it just eschews the concept of leadership, not organised society as a whole.

The other is definition is something vague that teens latch onto because they don't like their parents telling them when to go to bed.

I'm not an anarchist myself, but I'd be happier with their system than a lot of the other mad stuff that gets put forward.

I don't kill people, don't see the point in it. I was just using that as an example as to how powerful we humans could be without rules.

How has the government personally stopped you from being able to dictate what you do in your life?

And that is a terrible argument for anarchism, people don't like getting killed or people they like gettting killed. I don't like a lot of what my government does, but it does put n effort into keeping me from getting killed so tht I don't have to.

Depending on how you want to define functioning Anarchist Society, there were a few. They all inevitably failed though. The whys of that can be debated till the cows come home. Shinmin in Manchuria, the Free Territory in the Ukraine, etc etc...I think some managed to last a few years, but I am not sure if 'real' anarchism was even observed. Ukraine's free territory got invaded by the Russian Red Army in like 1920...about 2 years or so after it formed. Not very effective at protecting themselves. Which makes any state effectively useless as someone else comes along and just says "Nope". The interplay of Nations is essentially Anarchism on the international stage.

Personally? They make me pay to live, which is plain [censored] out of order. They stop me from building on a piece of land because it's owned by the [censored] of a queen. They stop me from speaking my mind to a police officer. They stop me from shooting someone who trespasses on my property because its 'unethical'. The list could go on.

Which is why I said we have no Functioning Anarchist Society

IMO anarchy can never work in a community until we're all telepathically linked. It's too inefficient. People have to agree on policies, procedures, rules, etc. in order to streamline and specialize the work that people perform in order to maintain and improve a community. Anarchy can work for very small groups where peer-to-peer communication is manageable, but very small groups working alone have serious limitations on what they can accomplish.

Powerful? Sure, the ability to rob and kill without immediate consequences from law enforcement might sound like power on the surface...until you realize that this power is offset by the fact that you will also need to expend a lot of energy to protect yourself and your family from others that have the same "power."

What do you mean by, "they make me pay to live?" Do you mean taxes or the purchase of the property?

Heck, if we're talking anarchy then would we have money at all? Who would print it, and how would we agree on what it was worth?

If you hate the government because you can't shoot someone then your exactly the kind of person who makes a government necessary. If anyone could build anywhere, then you wouldn't be building anywhere, some guy with a bunch of buddies would kick you off the land. You wouldn't be shooting people on your property people would be sneaking into it in the middle of the night and shooting you.

And if you think speaking your mind to a police officer is hard now, wait until they can shoot you without any consequences if you piss them off.

It's worked to some degree on a limited scale, like the Mondragon cooperatives in Spain today.

Pay to live? In what, a house? That seems like a companies thing. If somebody owns something then they own it, obviously you don't want people building stuff on your property because you want to shoot them for that. Seems like a double standard.

Sounds like you just want to do whatever the hell you want without any consequences. You want to kill other people for not respecting your property, but don't want to in turn respect the property of others. You are the very reason why anarchy does not work. Apply this state of thinking to all people, and you'll quickly realize that you still won't get to do whatever you want, because now everyone and anyone can and will do whatever they want to you. Sorry, chump, but consequences exist whether people are officially lording over your life or not.

You want to "be your own man?" You want to stop paying taxes and dealing with laws? Then get off the internet. Leave society. Go live in the wilderness. If you're going to be part of civilization,then man up and deal with the parts that go with it.

....I'm not the only one who thought this thread was about the sons of anarchy right?...I probably am..

Any who, I voted No cause I'm to lazy to type a a wall of text atm.

WE ARE THE BORG. YOUR BIOLOGICAL AN TECHNOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS WILL BE ASSIMILATED INTO OUR COLLECTIVE. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.