Anarchy could never work.

Post Reply New Topic

i doubt that the 0.6% who are estimated to even have psychopathic traits, suggesting the incidence of true psychopathy is even less, would kill everyone in an organised anarchist society. seems highly unlikely indeed.

New hierarchies would emerge very rapidly. Different people but very similar structures. THAT is our nature. Or NT nature anyway. The period where you'd have to worry about getting killed wouldn't last long.

And that'd be the point where the "nice" people will start killing each other as well. It'd all happen really rather quickly.



Even the hierarchies we have now are ruled by psychopaths, you think a completely lawless land wouldn't end up ruled by them as well? And if we can really live being that self-sufficient, why do we always have ruling entities? I mean before governments we had kings or queens. Throughout history we've always had some sort of state.



Like I just said, the world we have now is ruled by psychopaths and a lawless one wouldn't be any better. And as Sweetleaf's post shows, even people without actual psychopathic traits would start acting like psychopaths in such a situation, because, as I said in the first place, we'd revert to our basic survival instincts.

Anyone here ever read Lord of the Flies?

Also defending myself against someone trying to kill me, is not the same thing as acting like a psychopath. And since that is all I was implying I don't see how my post proves everyone would start acting like psychopaths

Yes but it's still perpetrating the "every man/woman for him/herself" mentality. The end result is the same: survival instincts kick in and, in that sort of extreme situation, we'd end up effectively becoming psychopaths.

Have you heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment? If you want to know what true human nature is, go check that out.



It's been that way over so much time for a reason is my point.

And I think it's even more likely we'd be ruled by psychopaths in anarchy, as I've just explained. Don't just look at the romanticisations of the idea on movies, actually think about human nature.



My point isn't that people would become psychopathic, my point is that people would act psychopathic because they'd have no choice but to fall back on their survival instincts.

survival instincts=killing each other off? somehow I think that is kind detrimental to survival. Just because society perpetrates the idea that competition is to be valued above all else does not mean that actually reflects actual human nature.

Clearly you're of the same misconception as the original poster. Anarchists don't simply wish to abandon law and the state and set up a free for all. Perhaps it might help you to actually read something about it before entering a discussion as though you know more about it than countless greater thinkers than you or I.

A collapsed state is worse than the state itself. If a state suddenly "collapses" out of the blue, all services that were managed by government suddenly cease to exist. Police, courts, etc. It would take time for private enterprise to become organized enough to come in and start providing those services in lieu of the government.

Anarchy is only desirable if it is worked towards gradually.

Well yeah it probably works a lot better when done gradually, I was mostly just disagreeing with the idea people need a government to keep them in line or else they will all behave like psychopaths, not suggesting anarchy should be an over night thing.

And your small group will kill other groups which actively got in its way, this is my point.



What you just said makes no sense. Look up what the Stanford Prison Experiment actually is. It didn't involve any actual convicts at all.



If a whole country had no government then it would not go well because human nature dictates that we only care about a very small number of people close to us, we are not capable of caring about more than 150 people. That's a fact. Look up the monkeysphere.



Human nature, at its most basic level, without the input it receives from our current so-called "civilised" society, would make us savages. Our specific breed of humans - homosapens - survived because we were the best hunters, not because we were the smartest. There was in fact, if I remember correctly, at least one other type of early human which was more intelligent than us, but they died out because they weren't as brutal as us.



Survival means survival of you and those within your "mokeysphere". Humans do not care about anyone outside of that. And human nature built our society.



Any system without authority is doomed to the same fate because there will be no entity to enforce any rules.

So your basic argument is humans are inherently evil and must have someone enforcing rules to prevent them from behaving like total psychopaths? If so I disagree, but understand the line of reasoning.

Humans are not always inherently violent, however survival instinct can make them so.

When it comes down to a basic "us or them" situation, people in general will get viscous and murderous in an attempt to survive... it's human nature.

With no system of government, those situations will happen with a much greater frequency (even with tribal systems, the Indians fought amongst themselves and one tribe even earned the name "The Roasters" for their torture with fire and coals).

Without big hierarchies you'd have little hierarchies and more violent competition between groups. Imagine nations being 6 people large. Eventually the current system would re-emerge.

Anarchy would never work.
Although not perfect, the Rule of Law is much more valuable than it gets credit for.
Even in areas in he US that have been hit by natural disasters that disrupt services it doesn't take long for pandemonium to reign supreme.
Look at New Orleans right after hurricane Katrina as an example.

The chaos presented by true anarchism would be far too much for most people to bear. This would either result in them organizing together to overcome their collective difficulties, or result in those who are more successful in an anarchy organizing to maintain supremacy. Both outcomes lead to the anarchy undoing itself.
Yet, no outside force puts forth universally recognized laws which force us to create government, so it may be said that we are still living in anarchy--in a sense.

I think anarchy could never work, because order would always arise from it. Why would anyone accept perpetual anarchy?