What do you think 'Anarchy' means?

Question

Also, do you think it is a valid and worthwhile form of government (or lack thereof)?

Answer 1

Monarchy is rule by one (mono) person, i.e. a king or emperor.
Oligarchy is rule by a few.
Anarchy is rule by none or no one, so strictly speaking it is not a form of government, it is the absence of government.
People aren't rational enough to live completely without coercive limitations on their behavior (laws enforced by police power), so, no, anarchy is not a workable system for organizing human society.

Answer 2

Anarchy is the absence of a ruling body. I don't think it's possible for an anarchy to exist for any length of time.

People, lacking the kind of artificial, imposed hierarchy that governments provide would organize themselves in to a hierarchy of their own, unless discouraged from doing so by some kind of external influence. But, if there is a group of people discouraging everyone else from creating a class system, then that very group of people become the de facto ruling class. So it's a catch 22.

There was an experiment done recently involving robots. There were two robots, and each had to perform the same tasks. Each robot had a limited battery charge, and so had to stop at recharging stations placed around the room. Each was programmed to perform its tasks as efficiently as possible, and each were identical. The unexpected result was that one robot maneuvered itself in such a way that it was able to spend more time at the recharging station, and less time working, forcing the other to pick up the slack. This obviously wasn't due to any laziness or greediness on the robot's part...it's just a robot. Rather, it reveals the nature of systems where tasks must be performed, and there is a limited amount of resources.

Here's a link to that describes the experiment:
http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/5/socialinequality.php

Answer 3

If you could go back in time you could ask a European trying to survive during the Hundred Years War. Or, more recently ask a Somali refugee what it's like in their homeland. You could contact a Chechen on the web and if you could understand one another ask them what it's like there. As for being a worthwhile form of government ask the above people what they think of that question I'd be interested to hear the responses. Anarchy is the absence of rules ie....law, human rights, the hope of a future, to get an ideal of mob rule just look up any good-sized riot any where in the world, thats anarchy.

Answer 4

Lasting anarchy is impossible, it is a matter of equilibrium. A marble at the bottom of a cup is in a stable equilibrium; it isn't going anywhere. A marble on the edge of a table is in an unstable equilibrium, the slightest change in its state will result in the marble seeking a more stable equilibrium, such as the floor. Similarly, anarchy is an unstable equilibrium. If in this state, a nation will revert to the most convenient form of government available, as soon as possible. This usually means despotism and tyranny- the simplest form of government. In other words, anarchy is neither feasible, nor desirable, as it leads to oppression. Minimum government within the bounds of a free Republic is the healthiest approximation of anarchy we can ever expect. That would be ideal.

Answer 5

When I think of being free, I think of anarchy. They are the same. Anarchy is a valid form but won't likely survive. People, by their nature, form communities with rules. There's a lot to gain by working together compared to anarchy.

Answer 6

True anarchy can't exist. If every "gov't" on earth was abolished, they all just strangely had acute heart failure then another "gov't" would form. Even in the state of Survivalism amongst small groups of people, one could argue that you just have a very large number of totalitarian gov'ts.

It's my opinion that the "Government" could be defined as a group of people following whom are under the direction of an individual(s) with a set of rules that the group abides. So a gov't *could* be like 20 people.

Answer 7

It is a total lack therof and the only place its a valid form of government is in theory. Anarchy is basically chaos. Theres little or nothing organized about it.

Answer 8

It is a very valid and benign form of self-government that has been painted as some kind of horrifying monster, like vigilantism. There is absolutely nothing inherently bad about either thing, but it does scare the hell out of government because it diminishes their power. So the brainwashing begins and never ends.

Answer 9

anarchy means NO government.. like during a riot, or during a hurricane.. when thugs walk around doing whatever and whomever they want.. with nobody there to stop them.
No it's not worthwhile, it's scary.

Answer 10

it means
1: Absence of any form of political authority.
2: Political disorder and confusion.
3: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
and i don't think it's a calid and worthwhile form of government