Anarchy will never work because

Anarchy will never work because...it never did.

 

I dont think anarchy has anything to do with free will or such things, its simply a political theory. It has worked in the past to some extend, and I dont really see a reason why it wouldn't be able to function nowadays.

 

A disputable opinion.

I think generalised statements about a system "working" or "not-working" tend to be fairly meaningless without proper clarification and examination.

 

Anarchy (no government and no laws) would never work.

 

Again, you really should offer arguments to support your statements. It sounds a lot like Fox News otherwise.
I could show you dozens and dozens of societies which functioned on anarchist principles that worked perfectly well for decades, in some cases even centuries. I'm thinking mainly of tribal societies like the Navajo or Celtic Irish, although more recent examples have also existed such as Republican Spain and the Paris Commune.

 

Care to provide a rationale?

Or are we just playing the "State our Opinions" game?

 

Show me a moderen country where anarchy works.

 

show ME a modern country where any system really works

besides, anarchy might mean the end of countries as we know them

[dare to dream, little fella]

 

if by anarchy you mean groups of people getting along without coercion, then anarchy exists all around.

trying to point to a country may have some problems. countries are geographical areas ruled over by states. the state decides what area it should rule over, forces people within those borders to get along, controls the economies of those nations, and other controls. they by definition cannot be voluntary institutions.

as far as i know there is no nation-state that is stateless.

 

Well that would be a lot like someone in medieval England saying "steam engines couldn't possibly work, show me one country that has a functioning rail infrastructure?"

The absence of a thing isn't proof that it "cannot work" it is merely proof that it is absent.

Also, you have still failed to clarify what you mean by something "working".
Anarchy, human social relationships operated voluntarily without external governence and coercion, happen and work all the time. The majority of your daily interactions are probably of this form.
And a great many laws function without enforcement. For example traffic laws, it would be impossible to fully police them, and yet for the most part people stop at lights, drive on the correct side of the road, use their indicators, all without being forced, because by voluntarily using such systems, driving is possible.

So the notion that humans are incapable of organising without government is palpably false.
How would a government even come into existence in the first place, if humans could not organise and rule without a government?

The logical conclusion of the statement "anarchy doesn't work" must be that the governments formed out of anarchy are useless, because they had their origins in a stateless society.

Contrary to common belief, governments and laws did not fall fully-formed from the sky.

Your statement also implicitly implies that the current system is "working[/i] which would be another fairly ambiguous assumption.

 

Well then with that reasoning, I guess Santa Claus is real too.

 

No, by that reasoning, the physical absence of santa clause in the present, is not the reason he could not exist in the future.

The reasons he could not exist are to do with the laws of physics, physical aging, and economy.

This is very simple logic.

If I said, "Santa cannot ever exist, because humans cannot work at a speed sufficient to deliver presents to the entire world in a single evening" I would be making a rational statement.

If I said

"Santa cannot ever exist, because he does not currently exist" I would be making an irrational statement.
It is true that Santa cannot exist, but it is not true that he cannot exist, because he does not presently exist.

Hence my example using medieval England. A great many things we have now, did not exist in any form then, and yet were possible, and came to be.

So in order to refute anarchy, you would need to provide a systematic rational of why it "cannot work", offering a proper examination of what anarchy is, how it would try to function, and specific observations of why these techniques could not work.

Simply stating that there are currently no large geographic regions which practice anarchic self-government is not in itself a refutation of anarchist theory.

Other posters here (myself included) have provided detailed rationale of why we think anarchy can (and does) work.

So far you have only posted short one-line denials and quips.

I'm happy to have a proper discussion with you about anarchy, if you really have an interest in such a conversation. But it takes two, you'll need to engage with us a bit here

 

Nevermind...I guess the conversation ends here for me.

 

S'lright.

Take it easy dude

 

Anarchy I think could fit into most peoples lives relatively easily if people were to understand anarchy isn't meant to be without order it just simply means that you can choose what order you want to submit too or not submit too if you chose not too. Anarchy is about free will. If people want to group together and make laws then that's fine,but those that dissent from those views should be allowed to live thier lives as they see fit. It isn't a movement without laws but simply people making their own laws and moral codes. Also one doesnt necessarily have to be self sufficient to be anarchist. There would still be those who would do specific jobs that they wanted to do to benefit society. it would be autonomous interdependance. people would still probably do jobs because people realize without anyone working no one will benefit and society would starve or crumble. so if people can just learn to let other people do what they want without infringing upon them then it would work. the problem is making everyone autonomous would make the government nearly useless which only gives them incentive to discredit the movement and of course plenty of other people want to force their views on others. and although this is a big step to try to overcome it can be done and it is a system that could work,the only reason it hasnt is because of people wanting to control others lives.

 

Anarchy is a means, but it can't work as an end.

 

Anarchy does work. Just ask anyone from Somalia.

 

anarchy should be used as a means, as in a way to reach an ends. but it certainly cannot remain and maintain as an end.

 

There's an anarchist bookstore near my house. The hours are constantly changing and it's always closed when it's supposed to be open, and open when it's supposed to be closed.

The reason anarchy would never work has nothing to do with being autonomous; but that we are free individuals.

We came together to form societies for a reason. We made government for a reason. These things are supposed to solve problems, help us all out, and help with peace. The problem is, we haven't worked out one good enough yet.

 

disagree, anarchism should always be a desired end, but an undesired means

marxism is a means which theoretically should result in with a stateless society, that is, anarchism, and i think that educating people to be a selfless part of society is a key here

anarchism as a means, or when we are unready to rule ourselves, is usually a big mess