Anarchy

[JohnLennon64]

The more that I think about things, the more that I think I might be an anarchist, but there is one problem...

I don't see how on earth the world would be safer under anarchy, could someone explain to me how a society without laws, police, or a justice system, could somehow be safer than what we have today?

Also please don't give me answers along the lines of "vigilante justice," because quite frankly, a vigilante justice system would be horrible because the "justice" would mostly be fueled by peoples passions, rather than actual logic.

[ContrarianLemming]

I don't see how on earth the world would be safer under anarchy, could someone explain to me how a society without laws, police, or a justice system, could somehow be safer than what we have today?



Anarchy wouldn't have laws or courts because....?

this criticism doesn't apply to it, but keep learning!

edit: anarchists have never believed in vigilante justice.

[JohnLennon64]

What laws would there be if there is not a government to enforce those laws, and what courts would there be if there are no laws to be prosecuted for?

[ContrarianLemming]

What laws would there be if there is not a government to enforce those laws, and what courts would there be if there are no laws to be prosecuted for?

Anarchy is no ruler, not no civics.

Each different region/commune/planet would have different systems, though I think each region should have certain common laws like "no killing" or "no rape".
They could be enforced in many ways, such as militia form police, ergo, people who are trained in this area, but are not professionals.
You have to shake away these preconceived notions, because you are using them, anarchy is no hierarchy, and nothing beyond that. We can still have laws and civics and organization and voting etc.
I invision a very complex socity, not whiskered men with bombs.

[JohnLennon64]

Anarchy is no ruler, not no civics.

Each different region/commune/planet would have different systems, though I think each region should have certain common laws like "no killing" or "no rape".
They could be enforced in many ways, such as militia form police, ergo, people who are trained in this area, but are not professionals.
You have to shake away these preconceived notions, because you are using them, anarchy is no hierarchy, and nothing beyond that. We can still have laws and civics and organization and voting etc.
I invision a very complex socity, not whiskered men with bombs.
Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law." I don't know where you are getting your deluded ideas of what anarchy is, but they are incorrect.

[Theoneontheleft]

I believe that Anarchy would work in smaller rural areas. In a lot of cases, it has already been happening, such as the hippie communes & the Amish farms; but I cannot see it working on a mass scale.

That is an interesting prospect though.

[ContrarianLemming]

Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law." I don't know where you are getting your deluded ideas of what anarchy is, but they are incorrect.

your bourgeoisie definition was not written by a class war anarchist communist.

[ContrarianLemming]

I believe that Anarchy would work in smaller rural areas. In a lot of cases, it has already been happening, such as the hippie communes & the Amish farms; but I cannot see it working on a mass scale.

That is an interesting prospect though.

communist anarchy and pure communism are indenticle, if you don't think it can work then you're not a communist.

[JohnLennon64]

your bourgeoisie definition was not written by a class war anarchist communist.
If you are so comfortable with your definition, then please tell me about this dictionary you use, because last time I checked, Random House (the dictionary that I use) doesn't have an agenda that they are trying to put out through their dictionaries.

[The Red Next Door]

If you are so comfortable with your definition, then please tell me about this dictionary you use, because last time I checked, Random House (the dictionary that I use) doesn't have an agenda that they are trying to put out through their dictionaries.

Yes, They do. Every single bourgeoisie run thing including the national bullshitgraphic and their imperialism monkeys have an agenda, you trust to much in the bourgeoisie system. my friend

[Theoneontheleft]

communist anarchy and pure communism are indenticle, if you don't think it can work then you're not a communist.

I never said that it could not work, but there does have to be some sort of regional divisions, in order to sustain some type of civil organization.

[ContrarianLemming]

If you are so comfortable with your definition, then please tell me about this dictionary you use, because last time I checked, Random House (the dictionary that I use) doesn't have an agenda that they are trying to put out through their dictionaries.

I've been reading about anarchism for 16 years, I tihnk I know a thing or two about it.
Now lets have a look at the number of definitions.



"No rulership or enforced authority."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#cite_note-0)
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#cite_note-1)
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism) due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#cite_note-2)
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#cite_note-3)
"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this.

As far asI can tell, your using the first
Almost every anarchist works with the second definition.
The social code could be any number of things, but for some weird reason, when I say "laws" in anarchy to someone whose new to it, they scoff, but if I say "rules" they typically say "well that's reasonable".

[NGNM85]

If you are so comfortable with your definition, then please tell me about this dictionary you use, because last time I checked, Random House (the dictionary that I use) doesn't have an agenda that they are trying to put out through their dictionaries.

You're right about the dictionary. However, the dictionary is better for some things than others. If you want to look up a word for an english paper, or prop up a coffee table, it's gold. However, when you're trying to understand a political ideology, it's a pretty blunt instrument. You'd be better off with an encyclopedia. Or better, yet, check out the Anarchist FAQ;

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

The FAQ or the encyclopedia can give you the long version. In short, despite common misconceptions, Anarchists are not against organization, or even against rules or laws. What they are against is monolithic concentrations of power. There would certainly be rules and laws in an Anarchist society, but they would not be created by massive bureaucracies, they would be expressions of the popular will. They would also, by nature, have to meet a burden of proof to justify them. A lot of exercises of authority in our society are illegitimate, those would cease to exist.

[AK]

Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law." I don't know where you are getting your deluded ideas of what anarchy is, but they are incorrect.
You thought a dictionary definition of anarchism would be correct? Capitalist book publishers aren't exactly ready to jump at the thought of quoting Bakunin or Kropotkin.