Why are people so affraid of anarchy?

[Amarok]

I'm of the opinion that so-called "anarchists" are folks who like what they have and want more, but don't understand that there ain't any free ride.

That's just about as awful as conservatives . Who say leftists only support social programs so they don't have to work.

[paulpablo]

The proposal is that there would be an organization a bit like an insurance company, when you both enter a contract you both do so with the help of a dispute resolution organization which you both agree upon.

And what, exactly, keeps that company from taking money from the both of you and not answering the phone?

Right now you have the police who uphold the law and they are a government agency, the idea in anarchy is that people voluntarily pay for law and order to be upheld in their community instead of the police being paid for by forced taxation.

I'm sure that will result in voluntary handouts surpassing the obligations we now face as citizens. No doubt the generosity of human spirit  will fund not only police enforcing non-existent laws (because remember, we're talking about no government, no legislature, no laws), but will also help to pay for roads, firehouses, ambulances, and so on.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. A "dispute resolution organization" could just as easily be a scam and you'd be none the wiser, taking your money and moving on. Explain why this is a different organization than, you know, a government. At least with a government, I've got firefighters willing to put their asses on the line to save my son or wife.

I'm of the opinion that so-called "anarchists" are folks who like what they have and want more, but don't understand that there ain't any free ride.

Yeh there's lots of questions to be asked.  But if we pretend we were starting a society from scratch you can ask the same question about a government.  America has a stable government, relatively speaking.  But you have situations in places with a less stable government where they do just take off with citizens money.

You could say ok so why should we trust a government? Even when talking about America, why should we trust a government?  They (governments in general) have a history of genocide, colonization, enslavement.  What if we give all our tax dollars to a government leader and they decide to take off, they decide to use the money on wars that make no sense, they decide to bomb the worlds poorest countries, they decide to use intelligence agencies to fund future terrorists.

That's not to say I think anarchy is a cure for this, I can't answer every "what if" question there is in relation to anarchy or a government.  I'm pretty happy living under a government that's all I know.

What I disagree with is the insistence there can be no laws in anarchy, and no one would pay for firemen or soldiers.  I think the system might be worse, possibly, but it's not impossible that law systems or that some sort of emergency service couldn't exist.

[Amarok]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...rchy-works
Yet more defenses of an anarchist view of social order

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/t...-faq-15-17
More

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/s...of-anarchy
More

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...of-society
More

[KevinM1]

And what would you do to your local Trump, who screws you out of a contract? What would you do when a mudslide wipes you out and you've no shelter or food? What would you do when you've got appendicitis and the only guy local who knows how to handle it demands your wife in his bed? What about when you get robbed and no one will report to the nonexistent police because they're terrified of getting their brains bashed in?

If you don't think these elements exist in humans, you're wrong.

Once again you guys keep confusing lawlessness with Anarchism . And I have denied nothing . I have already pointed out elsewhere different schools have different solutions to idea of law and order . This is almost as bad theists who insist Atheism leads to nihilism

---

How would such a communal system work?  I mean, I need 24-hour help, along with important medication and technology to simply live.  Medicare and Medicaid are, for all intents and purposes, guarantees.  Yeah, assholes in Congress can change it, revoke it, whatever, but that's still a lot less volatile than anything anarchy suggests.  Now, multiply me by several million.

I'm not sure what you mean ? are you suggesting that a communal medicare can't exist ? And why would such a system be volatile . This sounds disturbingly like theists who insist that if laws don't come from a magical source then anything goes.

How.  Would.  It.  Work.  Without.  A.  Government?

Until someone starts giving actual details, it's all pie in the sky bullshit.  Because I know Medicare and Medicaid.  I'm on them.

For a quick recap:

OP - government sucks and is tyrannical, anarchy is so much better
Me - except me and millions like me rely on the government to live, literally, so removing government will likely kill me/them given the depth and breadth of the care required on a large scale 
You - well, not necessarily... some vague references to communal support
Me - how would that work?  Actual details, not vague assertions 
You - you're starting to sound like a theist
Me - WTF?

Like I told the OP, assertions aren't arguments.  Show your work.  My argument is:

Medicare and Medicaid exist
These programs provide tangible aid to the elderly and disabled
This aid takes many forms, including but not limited to:
   Prescription coverage
   Medical insurance
   Access to specialized equipment 
   Access to caretakers
Without a government, these programs go away
Without these programs, people like me will die unless there's a viable alternative 

What's the anarchist's response?  What's their system for providing aid to millions of the disabled and elderly?  And how is it better than the current system?

I care not about the anarchist's philosophy.  Philosophy won't provide me my Metformin.  I want the actual nuts and bolts.

Put another way: if anarchism isn't lawlessness, then what is it? And if, politically, it has a different definition than the lay-person's understanding of it, then it has a serious branding issue and should make strides to fix it.

[Amarok]

And what, exactly, keeps that company from taking money from the both of you and not answering the phone?


I'm sure that will result in voluntary handouts surpassing the obligations we now face as citizens. No doubt the generosity of human spirit  will fund not only police enforcing non-existent laws (because remember, we're talking about no government, no legislature, no laws), but will also help to pay for roads, firehouses, ambulances, and so on.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. A "dispute resolution organization" could just as easily be a scam and you'd be none the wiser, taking your money and moving on. Explain why this is a different organization than, you know, a government. At least with a government, I've got firefighters willing to put their asses on the line to save my son or wife.

I'm of the opinion that so-called "anarchists" are folks who like what they have and want more, but don't understand that there ain't any free ride.

Yeh there's lots of questions to be asked.  But if we pretend we were starting a society from scratch you can ask the same question about a government.  America has a stable government, relatively speaking.  But you have situations in places with a less stable government where they do just take off with citizens money.

You could say ok so why should we trust a government? Even when talking about America, why should we trust a government?  They have a history of genocide, colonization, enslavement.  What if we give all our tax dollars to a government leader and they decide to take off, they decide to use the money on wars that make no sense, they decide to bomb the worlds poorest countries, they decide to use intelligence agencies to fund future terrorists.

That's not to say I think anarchy is a cure for this, I can't answer every "what if" question there is in relation to anarchy or a government.  I'm pretty happy living under a government that's all I know.

What I disagree with is the insistence there can be no laws in anarchy, and no one would pay for firemen or soldiers.  I think the system might be worse, possibly, but it's not impossible that law systems or that some sort of emergency service couldn't exist.

I agree with most of this as I said i'm not an anarchist myself . I just think after ACTUALLY reading what they have to say before dismissing it as impossible. Just like I have Conservatives ,Liberals ,Communists, Socalists ,libertarian s And even Facists. I can't have a clear opinion about them until I understand them.

---

OP - government sucks and is tyrannical, anarchy is so much better
Me - except me and millions like me rely on the government to live, literally, so removing government will likely kill me/them given the depth and breadth of the care required on a large scale
You - well, not necessarily... some vague references to communal support Then putting up a least a dozen links
Me - how would that work? Actual details, not vague assertions (provided )
You - you're starting to sound like a theist because just like a theist you insist without a theistic system morality there can be no morality .
Me - WTF?

I care not about the anarchist's philosophy. Philosophy won't provide me my Metformin. I want the actual nuts and bolts

Social programs are not  based on  political philosophy ?

Put another way: if anarchism isn't lawlessness, then what is it? And if, politically, it has a different definition than the lay-person's understanding of it, then it has a serious branding issue and should make strides to fix it.

Already provided links . Anymore so then Atheism .

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeh there's lots of questions to be asked.  But if we pretend we were starting a society from scratch you can ask the same question about a government.  America has a stable government, relatively speaking.  But you have situations in places with a less stable government where they do just take off with citizens money.

And they often do -- without the "taking off" part sometimes (cf. plenty of Third-World governments). But the fact is that removing government after millennia of cultural adaptation to it is simply not realistic. Starting from scratch is indeed only a pretense.

You could say ok so why should we trust a government? Even when talking about America, why should we trust a government?  They (governments in general) have a history of genocide, colonization, enslavement.  What if we give all our tax dollars to a government leader and they decide to take off, they decide to use the money on wars that make no sense, they decide to bomb the worlds poorest countries, they decide to use intelligence agencies to fund future terrorists.

I never said I trusted governments; I don't. Indeed, I've said enough here at this site that powers granted to government are almost never abused. But without governments, what's to prevent those depredations? At least in a republic one may vote against such assholes.

When said asshole is pointing a gun in your face, what recourse do you have other than shooting first? Is that a good model for a stable society? I don't think it is.

That's not to say I think anarchy is a cure for this, I can't answer every "what if" question there is in relation to anarchy or a government.  I'm pretty happy living under a government that's all I know.

I'm in the same boat. I dislike government overreach, which happens all too often. I'm also like you accustomed to what I know, "a bird in the hand" and all that.

What I disagree with is the insistence there can be no laws in anarchy, and no one would pay for firemen or soldiers.  I think the system might be worse, possibly, but it's not impossible that law systems or that some sort of emergency service couldn't exist.

Without a government, how would you pass laws, much less enforce them? I think this is where your thinking breaks down. Laws are laws because someone will do the dirty work of apprehending those who violate the social contract.

Without those guys, the social contract doesn't even have the paper on which it isn't written.

---

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...rchy-works
Yet more defenses of an anarchist view of social order

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/t...-faq-15-17
More

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/s...of-anarchy
More

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...of-society
More

Argument by linkage. Summarize your point intelligibly, if you can.

[Amarok]

I do the same when answering theists and no one on this forum complains . I do it when answering creationist an no one on this forum complains . I do it to right wingers and no one on this forum no one complains . I read other peoples links when they do the same .Not to mention it's how I learned about what anarchists believe instead of running around forums demanding people explain it too me.

---

Single best article I have read on the subject. because not only does it give examples of the government not being needed for something it gives real world examples of the anarchist solution working .

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...orks#toc33

[paulpablo]

Yeh there's lots of questions to be asked.  But if we pretend we were starting a society from scratch you can ask the same question about a government.  America has a stable government, relatively speaking.  But you have situations in places with a less stable government where they do just take off with citizens money.

And they often do -- without the "taking off" part sometimes (cf. plenty of Third-World governments). But the fact is that removing government after millennia of cultural adaptation to it is simply not realistic. Starting from scratch is indeed only a pretense.

You could say ok so why should we trust a government? Even when talking about America, why should we trust a government?  They (governments in general) have a history of genocide, colonization, enslavement.  What if we give all our tax dollars to a government leader and they decide to take off, they decide to use the money on wars that make no sense, they decide to bomb the worlds poorest countries, they decide to use intelligence agencies to fund future terrorists.

I never said I trusted governments; I don't. Indeed, I've said enough here at this site that powers granted to government are almost never abused. But without governments, what's to prevent those depredations? At least in a republic one may vote against such assholes.

When said asshole is pointing a gun in your face, what recourse do you have other than shooting first? Is that a good model for a stable society? I don't think it is.

That's not to say I think anarchy is a cure for this, I can't answer every "what if" question there is in relation to anarchy or a government.  I'm pretty happy living under a government that's all I know.

I'm in the same boat. I dislike government overreach, which happens all too often. I'm also like you accustomed to what I know, "a bird in the hand" and all that.

What I disagree with is the insistence there can be no laws in anarchy, and no one would pay for firemen or soldiers.  I think the system might be worse, possibly, but it's not impossible that law systems or that some sort of emergency service couldn't exist.

Without a government, how would you pass laws, much less enforce them? I think this is where your thinking breaks down. Laws are laws because someone will do the dirty work of apprehending those who violate the social contract.

Without those guys, the social contract doesn't even have the paper on which it isn't written.

---

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...rchy-works
Yet more defenses of an anarchist view of social order

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/t...-faq-15-17
More

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/s...of-anarchy
More

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p...of-society
More

Argument by linkage. Summarize your point intelligibly, if you can.

I imagine it depends on what type of society it is that has no government as to how they form laws and enforce them.

For the creation of them all it takes is for them to be written down and taken seriously/agreed upon.  Take for example sharia, obviously not all Muslims agree on what laws Islam dictates but there are communities who are all in agreement about what is written down.  And that's what makes it the law to them.

To enforce the law successfully obviously it would take some kind of monopoly on violence other than a government monopoly.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you've got groups of people all doing what the government does the way that government does it to achieve the same ends as government...those people are a government no matter what we might choose to call them.

A rose by any other name.

[Amarok]

But that's the thing most Anarchist don't wanna do systematically what the government does and the way it does it . As Peter Gelderloos tries to point out in his article the difference between an anarchist model of decision making to an Government model .