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.

Cool, an anarchism thread. I'm an anarchist and it annoys me how many people seem to subscribe to various myths about it.

Kropotkin was the only cool anarchist. Emma Goldman had some good points, but she was such a stuck-up bitch (although, living in those times and with her ideas, one can hardly blame her)

>>39

cruise control for cool

>>40
>>41

Thanks for proving >>37's point.

I still don't get anarchism. Let's say anarchism became popular in the US or in your state or whatever and people voted in an anarchist government.

Tell me what you think would happen during their term in office.

>>45

You are an idiot.

>>46
Copy paste what you think I don't understand, then you can call me an idiot without joining the ranks of the millions of random insults generated by the internet every second.

>>47
"An anarchist government" wouldn't be in power. You would. And so would everybody else. What would happen? That depends on what you, and I, and all of us collectively decide should happen. If you are affected by a decision, you should have a say in it.

That depends on what you, and I, and all of us collectively decide should happen.

Pretty obvious what will happen, isn't it?

Anarchism would have to somehow defy all our instincts and prior history to become an effective system. Somehow I'm not impressed with the thought of living under warlords.

>>49

What you are implying is only "Pretty obvious" if you or some else has plans on becoming a warlord. Take stock of the warlords and supposed rulers of the world. In an anarchy- we outnumber them.

>>48
So the Anarchist party gets elected, how do they make anarchy a reality? Do they simply not issue any orders or collect any tax? Surely not, who would fund the police, health and fire services?

>>50
if you or some else has plans on becoming a warlord

Yeah, that's a problem, isn't it?

In an anarchy- we outnumber them.

And right now we don't. Right.

>>47

que?