Anarchy

It seems to me that the biggest problem with an anarchist system is the size of populations. Take China or some other country of similar size, turn it anarchist, and you'd get complete chaos. Take some little self-sufficient town out in the middle of nowhere where everybody gets along pretty well, take away from it the influence of any kind of state or government, and that pretty much just takes away all the beauracratic crap they have to deal with.

Who's to say that people can't get along when a small community -- every single person who wants to live there -- decides to work for their own individual interests and yet agrees to trade their goods or whatever with each other according to their own judgement and terms, and everybody that decides to build this community has similar codes of ethics and philosophy that promote prosperity.

But with the way things are today, you'd have a lot of trouble going out somewhere and finding a spot of land worth settling such a community on that's not already controlled by some government; to my knowledge, at least.

Now why couldn't that logically work? I don't buy this pessimistic crap that people simply can't work with each other in a way where everyone is capable of their own happiness in an environment of complete freedom. I don't buy that not everyone has that drive and ambition somewhere in 'em. I think it just seems otherwise today because of the cultures that come from the influence of a large population: all of this welfare and handout culture.

What are your views, 4chan? Discuss.

In anarchy where every person is for oneself, the strongest will end up taking other's share. Thus inequality will still occur. Anarchy is simply a pathway to dictatorship.

>>2

That's the 6th grader's version of it. You need to either do more reasearch about Anarchy or lurk more.

>>2
Believe it or not, not everybody is out to screw everybody else for their own benefit, as opposed to operating on a mutual understanding of how they benefit from each other on individual terms. Just my opinion, but I think that view shows a lack of self-esteem.

>>1

Yes exactly. I used to be an anarchist until I realised that. Anarchy works nicely in small groups, but something deeply disturbing happens when you try to apply it to large ones. I don't really know what. Maybe people can only emphatize with a limited amount of people. Or maybe it's that large groups get divided into smaller groups that have conflicting goals. Maybe people are just dumb. In any case, anarchy will never work on a large scale, but it's awesome to practice it among select friends.

OMG this is so fucking stupid. As for the China analogy...Only the current COMMUNIST government of China views China as "one gigantic population". By the very nature of Chinese culture, they dice themselve up into smaller groups. The only thing we need is fair fully democratic, non-beaucratic law and fair individuals willing to enforce the law.

>>1 " ... or some other country of similar size"
I was speaking in generality.

"The only thing we need is fair fully democratic, non-beaucratic law and fair individuals willing to enforce the law."

Democracy leads to beauracracy. It's inevitable. For most people, when they get the feel of authoritative power, they want to keep that power and mold the law toward their own objectives... No matter how inconvenient, ridiculous, or just plain stupid it is for the citizens their laws are supposed to protect. It's all about bringing home the bacon and staying in power to politicians.

well, then we need to get rid of politicians then don't we?

>>5  Maybe people can only emphatize with a limited amount of people.

This hits the nail right on the head.  It's easy to control your actions when you see the consequences immediately and locally; jim loses the shirt of his back, you feel bad about it, and everyone you know scowls at you whenever they walk by until you make amends. 

But in such a large group, you don't know who you're affecting, nobody knows you did anything, therefore, you can feel guilt free.  In such a large group, the usual ties that keep you in line, the ones the human race evolved to use aren't there anymore.

That's why we need some government.  I'm not a big government supporter, and I agree that some people will become parasites (it's a natural thing that happens, it's why parasite is a natural designation of an organism) no matter what, and that some people will be "disefranchised".  But that's OK.  At least the system we have rewards those who provide the most most of the time. 

>>9
There was a theory that humans can only accommodate about ~140 relationships. Once a group of people becomes larger than that, we can not longer keep track of everyone.

Surprisingly, this theory has some evidence to back it up.