There are probably only a handful of people on the entire planet that are that dedicated, so no, it won't work.
“rule by no one,”
Means no rules. . .you make your own rules.
I want what you have, I’ll take it.
No rules or someone to say it is wrong.
If rules say ‘no’ then some one had to write the rules, and if someone says ‘no’ (like the person being robbed) then that person makes the rules.
.
Anarchy = nonsense.
The New England town meeting of old was a very effective model for governing. Towns could band together to protect themselves from a common goal. Town meetings were the source of decision-making for the good of its inhabitants.
There just can't be any real freedom in the global and national messes that are running things now. They're removed from those they supposedly govern, and their only interest is contolling populations for their gains....financial and otherwise.
Anarchy is possible, but only for a brief time before the dictatorship.
Pray for a Sulla, be content with a Pinochet. Fear a Cromwell.
In any truly anarchic situation, people quickly rally around natural leaders, who re-establish government, of a sort at least. In its initial stages, such government often bears a significant resemblance to rule by street gangs.
The term “anarchy,” in its origins, actually meant “without a leader,” not without government. History shows not one single period of which I’m aware of anything resembling a stable anarchic order. (Anarchic order, of course, being a classic oxymoron.)
The choice is not between rule by leaders and absence of leaders, it’s between how leaders are chosen.
These wild swings in societal organization reflect an immoral an immoderate society. The calls for anarchy always accompany the response to the rise of totalitarianism. Time and time again, anarchists transform themselves into totalitarians after they have destroyed the previous tyranny. True anarchy is just another form of Utopianism; it is impracticable and it inevitably descends into tyranny.
A truly civil and just society requires virtuous populace to take root. We had that at the founding of this nation. We once had a people that believed in and feared their Creator; the people believed in a moral order substantially and essentially based on the Ten Commandments. Today, the virtuous populace is but a relic, a minority rump of its past.
That being said, this current tyranny is IMO, capable of enormous evil, and I would ally myself with the anarchist, at least for the time being, to defeat it.
And then they started using dynamite.
Typically, people believe that the state is "a necessary evil" for one or more of the following reasons:
And finally, there's this:
"When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating." -- Frederic Bastiat
“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.
In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” —Robert Higgs
She’s right. A society for grown ups.
Lot a folks out here want to be either Peter Pan or Capt. Hook though...
I don’t think that Christians have to worry about their behavior during anarchy. They may have to worry about other people’s behavior, but not their own. If they seek to emulate Christ, then they don’t need laws to know that murdering and stealing and cheating are wrong.
“Love The Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and treat others as you would like to be treated.”
Brilliant. Succinct and all-encompassing. Brilliant. Way too brilliant for a mere man. Our people have this brilliance in front of them every day and run searching for long, foolish answers.
The problem with anarchy is that it leads to future tyranny by warlords.
Anarchy only works in a vacuum. Much like Libertarianism, it ignores external threats. By refusing to establish a common protectorate, you pretty much guarantee some neighboring fiefdom will be governing you. Some form of cooperative is necessary, and it will need some sort of ground rules and a chain of command to function - and that means government.
And I may get flamed for mentioning this of FR, but any form of governance that allows large hereditary estates to form will guarantee despotic rule.
I’m a big fan of “less-archy”. Other than common defense, I can’t think of a darned thing government is good for besides allowing entrenched aristocracies to form and keeping them in power.
I learned a lot from this video:
What Anarchy Isn’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA&feature=youtu.be