Anarchism

[Darkstar]

Then it is up to the "strong" to fight back. I don't see how you could not deduce this one for yourself. As for the gentleman above you, the reason "doomsday" scenarios are painted that way is because the liberal media/Hollywood are the one's portraying in such a manner. I could easily point you to films like "1984" & "V for Vendetta" to offer up my argument(s) as well, but see them only as works of fiction/art.

Your idea that only government can keep us in line is a typical statist mentality that has been indoctrinated into your brain from a very early age. Without obedience to the state, we're all doomed!

A leftist girl at the local pub asked me who I was going to vote for. When I responded with: I don't vote, I'm an anarchist. She quickly replied with something to the effect of: Oh, no! I don't want to get raped.

The aforementioned mentality seems to be lacking in common sense, so I decided to drink my beverage & forgo any type of rational argument, because I could see she was unarmed.

Anarchy doesn't mean people will do bad things, but that bad people can easily victimize their prey without fear because there is no one to stop them. Yeah, governments can be bad, but I think the American constitution is a good example (whatever else America is doing notwithstanding) of how government is supposed to work. Power is derived from the people; if a government becomes oppressive, the people have a right to overthrow it. You will probably say "yeah but only in theory, no government runs exactly like that", but then let me ask you this: why do you think anarchy extends usefullness beyond theory. The simple fact is that if you wanted to do something bad to her, in a society with no government you could and then no one could do anything about it. Friends of hers? The thug's friends will have bigger guns. You put too much faith in humanity; society would either break down, or re-establish government. Why do you think government was even established in the first place?

State of nature

John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Exclusion Crisis in England during the 1680s. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." (2nd Tr., §4). "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property"; and that transgressions of this may be punished. This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).

Even Locke, who had the most positive view of non-government basically says that reason shows us certain things. Yet, said things seem conspicuously similar to what government was designed to do already. Now there is simply a system. If there is no system at all, there is chaos. If there evolves a system, then that system might be called government.