Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Discuss issues related to politics, government and law.
Post Reply
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

Arrogant self-righteous intellectuals such as Mark Passio and Stefan Molyneux, claim that government and authority is 100 percent unnecessary, invalid and unnatural. They believe that the ideal system is one of Anarchy, a society without laws, rules or authority. This is an extreme view, and as we all know, extremes are never good and cannot be sustained.

Anarchy cannot work in the real world. Some common sense logic reveals this. Thus those who advocate it are clearly delusional.

Without any law or government, any guy could do a hit and run on you and get away with it. People and logging industries could plunder all the forests of trees for profit. They could desecrate Yosemite National Park. They could steal all the petrified wood in Painted Desert, AZ. They could steal all the Indian artifacts in Mesa Verde, Colorado, like some did before, and get away with it. Hunters could kill off the rest of the buffalo and bison and make them extinct, like they almost did in the 1800's. Who would stop them?

See what I mean?

Also, under anarchy, I could go to your house and rape your wife or steal your things. Then, if you went after me in revenge, if I managed to gun you down, then I'd win and that would be the end of it. Is that the kind of justice that you want? There'd be nothing but gang warfare or clan warfare under such a system.

Even the founding fathers of America did not believe in anarchy. They were intellectuals who knew that such a system could not work, and neither could democracy. That's why they proposed a Republic (rule of law) with a small government whose role it was to protect basic rights and liberties. And that's what we had during the 1800's, when government was much smaller than the monster size it is today.

Anarchists are delusional angry hippies. They have ZERO experience in running a country or even an organization, so they know NOTHING about running a society. Thus they are talking out of their a** and don't know jack about running a country. They are just a bunch of arrogant self-righteous delusional hippies with irrational ideas that don't work in the real world. And their opinions are UNQUALIFIED too. They have no management skills, leadership skills or organizational skills. History also shows that anarchy doesn't work and never has. It's not a stable system at all.

The only way some Anarchy might work is if everyone lived in harmony with the earth and each other, like Native Americans did. But even they had their tribal laws and customs. So there can't be zero laws and rules. There has to be at least some, even if it's minimal. So 100 percent Anarchy can't work, but yeah, laws and rules can be reduced to a minimum if everyone lived in harmony with nature and others.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6275
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 7:00 am

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Moretorque »

You need a ethic code to live by and the all powerful state is not it, it all depends on us. Limited government but this requires a intelligent populace who understands what happens when you get to much power centralized.

Winston were out of time for this, either the populace wakes up now and realizes our children live here after us or this thing is going into total state tyranny because to much power has been centralized and they have the means to dispose of most of us with the technologies we created.

Real leadership and what the elites have setup is not it.
Time to Hide!
Jonny Law
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1160
Joined: May 13th, 2014, 1:14 pm

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Jonny Law »

-NEWSFLASH-
Anarchy is f***ing Awesome. It works great in the Real World. Anarchy is a system run by Warlords :)

Anarchy is in effect in the beautiful country Somalia.
http://content.time.com/time/world/arti ... 04,00.html

If you love to fight and kill it is a great system :) Of course you have to enjoy it while it lasts because Warlords usually do not live very long.

Thanks and enjoy :)
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 5983
Joined: April 16th, 2011, 6:23 pm

Post by Ghost »

.
Last edited by Ghost on November 3rd, 2017, 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
zacb
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1573
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 8:33 pm
Location: Somewhere out in the American West (for now)

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by zacb »

Winston, what do you think of anarcho capitalism, or it's subsets such as panarchism? It seems like it is not against governance per se, just governace through force.
The Daily Agorist, Learn to Live Independent of the System! http://www.theagoristreview.blogspot.com
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

Image
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
gsjackson
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3759
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 7:08 am
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by gsjackson »

Winston wrote:Image
Great cartoon. I've sometimes said that it's helpful to think of the U.S. government as a continuing criminal enterprise.
Johnny1975
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1725
Joined: September 22nd, 2012, 4:07 pm

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Johnny1975 »

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers. At least that's my understanding.
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

zacb wrote:Winston, what do you think of anarcho capitalism, or it's subsets such as panarchism? It seems like it is not against governance per se, just governace through force.
Im no familiar with those terms. Can you elaborate on them?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

Think about this everyone. When has there ever been a successful revolution or utopia that has made the world a better place?

Even anarchy has its flaws and wrong assumptions. Even without government there would be wicked men everywhere trying to take advantage of people and committing immoral deeds. Anarchy assumes the common people are all good and respect each other. But reality and human nature are not like that.

“One can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit...Love is a bond of obligation that these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes.” 
- Niccolo Machiavelli

Thats why some government is necessary and anarchy cant work. See the Machiavelli quote above. Its a false assumption to think people are good and only government is bad.

Even hunter gatherer tribes have some authority and elders who run the tribe. You cant have zero authority.

You need to have at least localized authority or chain of command. You cant have zero authority. I agree that too much centralized authority is no good though.

However, Chinese historians will tell you that splitting China into many little municipalities would be like ancient times - lots of wars between warlords in China and no peace. Isnt that why Emperor Qin, the emperor who built the great wall, wanted to create an empire to unify China, to end the domestic warfares in China and bring peace?

How would you refute that argument that Chinese historians would give?

It could also be that the ancient wars in China were exaggerated and propagandized as an excuse for empire building. Rulers lie all the time. So they could have lied about that too.

But even those spiritual new age native American Indian tribes warred with each other, which the new age movement likes to avoid mentioning. Lol
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

To any anarchists here:

Im wondering something. Under anarchy, how would the following be resolved?

1. Who would protect the buffalo and bald eagle from hunted down to extinction? Currently they are protected by the US government. Utah has protected preserves for bison to live and repopulate since they were killed by hunters and fur poachers during the 1800s by the millions down to near extinction.

2. Whos gonna settle disputes and lawsuits such as land and territorial disputes? Whoever acts as judge or arbitrator has to have authority right?

3. Whos gonna protect you from robbers and criminals? Even if you have guns, what if they have more men and more guns than you and better shooters?

When you go out and travel the road, whats gonna prevent highway robbers from coming and holding you up?

4. Whos gonna protect and preserve the national parks? Whats gonna prevent the logging industry from cutting down all the trees in Oregon, Washington and the California redwoods? Whats gonna prevent farmers from taking over Yosemite and using it for cattle grazing and farmland like farmers wanted to do since the 1800s?

Whos gonna prevent thieves from stealing native artifacts at mesa verde, colorado? Like they did in the past? Today the US park service protects it. What happens when thats gone?

5. In the award winning PBS 9 hour documentary series "The National Parks - Americas Best Idea" directed by ken burns, it portrays the federal government as the hero that constantly saves the day. The 9 hour series shows many historical examples of how the federal government had to come in and save the national parks and preserve nature. Many industries and people wanted to desecrate or privatize the national parks. But the government was the hero that constantly prevented that from happening, with the help of US presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt.

How do anarchists explain that or refute that?

6. Whos gonna build and maintain the roads and bridges in the country? Whos gonna pay for them?

7. Did you know that in the 1860s, no private corporation wanted to take on the risk of financing the transcontinental railroad? So the government had to step in and subsidize the whole project and contract two corporations for the job. Otherwise it would never have been built.

Why dont anarchists ever give the government credit for stuff like that? How would anarchists have been able to build the transcontinental railroad?

8. Isnt it true that seat belt laws save lives during automobile accidents? If so wouldnt more people be killed without seat belt laws? The government claims to have stats that prove that. They are probably legit. How come anarchists never consider stuff like this?

Also how would libertarians address these questions?

Thanks.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

I agree with this guy below. Finally someone who is aware. He is right that:

Most people cannot live under anarchy or libertarian government. If everyone was highly conscious like Buddha then anarchy may work. Or if they had very high moral values like the family on "Little House on the Prairie" then libertarianism can work. But most people are nothing like that at all, as we know. So anarchy or libertarianism cannot possibly work.

Most people do not have free will. They are on auto pilot and operate according to subconscious routine and programming. especially in Asia where people have a literal hive mind. So I've never understood why New Agers and Christians claim that everyone has total free will. Not true at all. It requires higher consciousness to have some free will. The average person doesn't have it. No way.



"Individuation and the alchemical marriage
The inner marriage is an alchemical transformation of the base matter of the personality into spiritual gold. It is a process that Carl Jung called ‘individuation’. We let go of false images of ourselves created by our environment and by the projected visions of parents, teachers, friends and lovers. We let go of the Persona, the protective mask we put on to face the world. We face the Shadow, our own inner negativity. We accept our contra-sexual sides, Anima and Animus. We own as ours those aspects of ourselves that we have projected onto other people."
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Gali
Junior Poster
Posts: 694
Joined: October 3rd, 2020, 5:20 am

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Gali »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSNLF3F7mlI&t=1353s
Is America About to Become an Anarchy? - Michael Malice
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 37670
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Winston »

Question for anarchists:

PBS has a 9 hour documentary series by Ken Burns called "The National Parks". In that series it constantly hails the federal government as a hero for saving the national park from people like the lumber industry, loggers, and ranchers who wanted to plunder them. The government also saved the bald eagle and buffalo from being hunted to extinction, and Indian ruins in the Southwest USA from being stolen and desecrated, such as Mesa Verde, Colorado. Even RFK Jr said that some government is necessary to provide services such as the sewer system, since no private company would build a sewer system, as there's no profit in it. So isn't some government necessary? How do you explain the above examples? Fanatical anarchists like Mark Passio NEVER address these questions. Can you? Without government, who would stop the lumber industry and ranchers from plundering the beautiful national parks? Who would stop hunters from hunting animals to extinction?

Also, when has history ever shown anarchy to work as a stable system? The John Birch Society videos say that anarchy has never been stable or workable, and that history shows that anarchy is always a TRANSITION stage to another form of government such as oligarchy or republic. So on what basis do you think anarchy can work as a stable system? No one who ever ran a business or company or been a manager thinks that anarchy can possibly work in the real world.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Outcast9428
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1913
Joined: May 30th, 2021, 12:43 am

Re: Why Anarchy can't work in the real world

Post by Outcast9428 »

Somalia is a land that has descended so deeply into misery that "failed state" is now too generous a description for the country.
:lol: that statement cracked me up. I know its not professional or accurate but these overdramatic sentences in news articles do make them a lot more entertaining to read.
Winston wrote:
October 6th, 2017, 12:37 pm
Think about this everyone. When has there ever been a successful revolution or utopia that has made the world a better place?
I'd argue that the economic as well as humanist/naturalist revolution during Europe in the 1400s created a society that was pretty damn close to utopia.

The black death in the 1300s pretty much completely killed off the serf class in Europe and afterward, laborers who could work the farmlands were in high demand. This resulted in peasants demanding higher wages starting in 1350 in the aftermath of the black death. During most of the 1300s, the lords/government fought back. They even tried to pass a law that forbid anyone from raising wages for fear that any lord who gave in and paid the peasants more would result in all the peasants leaving their current lord and working for that lord instead.

But then the peasant revolt happened in 1381 where the peasants demanded lower taxation rates, higher wages, and the complete abolition of serfdom. Ultimately the revolt was suppressed but it caused so much damage and scared the upper classes of England so badly that they slowly gave in to the peasants demands' afterward anyway.

Wages in 1450 were twice as high as they were in 1350. And the Medieval economy did not experience any inflation until well into the 16th century. Not only were the wages twice as high, but peasants made enough money they no longer had to live on the lords' land. 75% of the peasantry owned their own homes and if you owned your own home in Medieval Europe, you practically paid no taxes. Only a 10% tithe to the church. But even on the lords' land they could only charge a tax rate of 10% so the few who did live on the lord's land weren't getting the wages sucked out of them like leeches such as was the case before the black death.

People in Renaissance Europe worked incredibly short hours. They only worked 4 days a week for about 7-8 hours a day, coming out to approximately 1300-1400 hours a day. Ordinary peasants were making and saving so much money they could afford the same clothing that the aristocrats wore. It was pissing the aristocrats off so much they made it illegal for peasants to wear certain clothes. Afraid that there was essentially no way to distinguish between lords and peasants anymore just by looking at them.

That covers the economic portion of the era, but the humanist/naturalist revolution was just as instrumental to improving the quality of life. Humanism basically said that life on Earth matters too and that we ought to concentrate on making our lives on Earth joyful too and not just focus solely on the afterlife. Naturalism, meanwhile, claimed that sexuality was a good thing because it was natural to human beings and given to us by God so humans ought to enjoy sex as an act of pleasure and not just for the purpose of procreation.

What this resulted in was a society that was positive towards sexual pleasure, while simultaneously adhering to Christian morality. So this did not result in hookup culture or degeneracy overtaking the landscape. Instead all sexuality was funneled into marriage and prostitution. Arranged marriage was the norm back then which made marriage pretty much universal, in Italy 97% of women were married by the age of 25 and most of the women who were prostitutes who'd eventually marry at 30 years old, there were harsh penalties for adultery and it was extremely stigmatized. Prostitution was legal, extremely widespread, and cheap enough that some young men could spend several nights in a row at brothels. Some teenage boys' fathers even paid prostitutes to spend the night with them when they were 14-16 years old.

The church no longer considered prostitutes to be evil like they did in the 1300s, instead they claimed that prostitutes served an important role in regulating the moral health of society by fulfilling the sexual needs of young men and thus preventing adultery, homewrecking, rape, and violent crime, all of which they believed young, sexually frustrated men would be susceptible to. Legal prostitution was thought to help preserve the virginity of normal girls because single young men could go to a brothel when sexually frustrated instead of trying to seduce women they were courting. The change in the church's attitudes towards prostitution is reflected in the fact that brothels were situated right in the middle of town centers now rather then restricted to sketchy slums. Prostitutes could attend festivals and holidays alongside families and act like normal people. And the church even employed prostitutes to help cook food which would then be given as charity to the poor.

It is also a myth that Medieval people never bathed and were always stinky. They actually bathed every day, with soap. Soap was the only item other then food which was produced on a virtually industrial scale in Medieval Europe. During the 1400s, countries in Europe like France and Italy even had public bathhouses that you could bring your wife or a prostitute to.

Unfortunately this did all start changing in the late 16th century because all the prostitution was causing a syphilis epidemic. So the church became convinced that God was punishing everybody for being sinful so during the 17th century, the church went in the complete opposite direction and became extremely prudish to the point where they even claimed that being too passionate for your wife constituted spiritual adultery. The extremism of the church in the 17th century for a wide variety of reasons, primarily the 30 years war and the witch trials is what lead to the destruction of its power during the 18th century.

But I think the culture of Renaissance Europe proves that we don't have to choose between degeneracy and asceticism. We can acknowledge that sexuality is a good thing while also understanding that it is an extremely powerful force for human behavior and must be handled carefully.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Politics, Government, Law”