Is a functional and stable anarchy an utopia?

Answer 1

You know, when I was young, I had exactly the same thought, Maitre! I believed that the type of "anarchy" would be, by necessity, a kind of idyllic eden where people, through mutual cooperation, would love and respect each other, no one would ever rule or be ruled and there would be no need for, or even an idea of "government" except at the very smallest of cooperative levels, such as a commune. This truly would be a utopia, if it were possible. But over the years, as my understanding of human nature has progressed, I've come to believe such a utopia cannot exist in the current being-essence of our world. Thank you for an interesting question. ---sincerely, UCSteve

Answer 2

Functional and stable seems to be a contradiction of anarchy. Anarchy, being an absence of law, would be an absence of function since there is no true accountability. I do agree that a society where everyone could do the right thing on there own would be idyllic or utopian-since utopia means "nowhere", that world could not exist because perfection is in the eye of the beholder and many individuals would have opposing views on what is right. Just look at all the "red" and "blue" states in America.

Answer 3

There is no way to have a functional or stable anarchy. It might look good on paper, but it would never work. People's animal instincts would take over. How would you keep people from stealing from you or killing you? You would probably want hired help to protect you from others, and you would probably give these individuals rules to follow as long as they are in your employment. As soon as you do this (and assuming others would have too) you destroy anarchy. In this scenario, many people would have created these little social groups and eventually would probably turn on each other for land, beliefs, or whatever. Because there is not one central government, there are many more opportunities for violence and war between peoples of the same general area.

Far cry from an utopia.

Answer 4

usually a utopia is related to a perfect society
it doesn't necessarily have to be an anarchy either
plus functional and stable are very broad and unspecific words
functional can be China's but they have many problems
stable can describe other governments too but they also have problems...

1.
1. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
2. A work of fiction describing a utopia.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.

Answer 5

I would agree with that statement. Where there is no need for a state hierarchy because the individuals are endowed with a sense of duty, respect and morality. This "Progressive Anarchy" would be the first step to true Utopia i believe. I'm actually writing a paper on this at the minute. I might refer you to a book;
Daniel Quinn; Beyond Civilization

Answer 6

Isn't an anarchy defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder (unstable)? And no, it's not utopia because a society that is advanced both intellectually and technologically (a utopia)understands that cooperation is essential for success and prosperity.

Answer 7

find me a functional and stable anarchy, you will then find utopia, and ocean front property in Arizona.

Answer 8

from the point of view of people who lived one thousand yrs ago our present society would be an anarchy! just think about ))

Answer 9

It would never work. There's an evil/selfish bastard inside every human, just waiting to come out!

Answer 10

That should be "A" utopia not an utopia.