![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Anarchists
Apr. 1st, 2005 03:21 amThis is an honest question, about something I don't understand.
How is anarchy* a good thing? I've seen any number of people claiming to be anarchists, and they seem to think that anarchy would be an improvement. Real-world near-anarchies include Lebanon during its civil war (1975-1990), Afghanistan between the departure of the USSR and the US invasion (1989-2001), and Somalia (1977-present). All have been characterized by armed gangs trying to control as much of the nation as possible, with no security or safety guaranteed to anyone. How does this equate to the nominal utopia that anarchy is supposed to bring about? If there was no government, I would expect nothing other than local gangs controlling as much territory as they could, making treaties with neighboring gangs, and alliances assembling into progressively larger gangs to better beat up on opposing gangs. EDIT: Given the power of modern corporations, I would expect any nominal anarchy in a developed country to end up with some form of corporatism, if not outright fascism. /EDIT
Given all this, any time I see anyone espousing anarchism, I have a strong desire to see them get the snot beaten out of them by random passerby. This would likely provide the person with a representative taste of the early stages of anarchy. The police, as government employees, would turn a blind eye and do nothing; far be it for them to interfere with the anarchist's beliefs.
I'd like to be shown wrong here, but I can't offhand see how. If you do reply, please try to avoid diatribes about the evils of government; what I want to see is how having no government would work in any way other than what I described above.
* ( Definitions )
How is anarchy* a good thing? I've seen any number of people claiming to be anarchists, and they seem to think that anarchy would be an improvement. Real-world near-anarchies include Lebanon during its civil war (1975-1990), Afghanistan between the departure of the USSR and the US invasion (1989-2001), and Somalia (1977-present). All have been characterized by armed gangs trying to control as much of the nation as possible, with no security or safety guaranteed to anyone. How does this equate to the nominal utopia that anarchy is supposed to bring about? If there was no government, I would expect nothing other than local gangs controlling as much territory as they could, making treaties with neighboring gangs, and alliances assembling into progressively larger gangs to better beat up on opposing gangs. EDIT: Given the power of modern corporations, I would expect any nominal anarchy in a developed country to end up with some form of corporatism, if not outright fascism. /EDIT
Given all this, any time I see anyone espousing anarchism, I have a strong desire to see them get the snot beaten out of them by random passerby. This would likely provide the person with a representative taste of the early stages of anarchy. The police, as government employees, would turn a blind eye and do nothing; far be it for them to interfere with the anarchist's beliefs.
I'd like to be shown wrong here, but I can't offhand see how. If you do reply, please try to avoid diatribes about the evils of government; what I want to see is how having no government would work in any way other than what I described above.
* ( Definitions )
