What are bad things about an Anarchy Government?

Question

im doing an 8 page speech against a friend on Anarchism... what are good things about it and what are bad things about it?

Answer 1

That is an Oxymoron, Anarchy is about no government

Answer 2

There's nothing good about it! What's more, it isn't sustainable. It's kind of like anti-matter in that it's a theoretical thing. The very moment people recognize that a state of anarchy exists, they will attempt to create some kind of political entity by which to gain an advantage. It's impossible. Anarchy is more than just no rules, it really means no accountability. There is no crime because nothing is against the law, but evil will still be done, only nobody will feel compelled to do good because all learning we have can only occur where there is language. language is based on cooperation, cooperation is based on the existence of a government to provide basic order through the threat of violence.

Answer 3

Dude, anarchy is the absence of government so "Anarchy Government" is an oxymoron. If people all agreed on (and lived by) the same set of morals, ethics and values we might be OK without law enforcement or government. Since people from different cultures have very different ideas regarding what's acceptable anarchy would probably lead to chaos. It would be hard to maintain too. Generally, people tend to be drawn to other people with similar views and ethics in order to gain strength through numbers. Soon enough things would come around to where they are now.

Answer 4

well one do not use the words anarchy and government as one the oppose eachother and in an anarchy there will be no one to control the masses and the masses need controled there will also be no one todecide on the wars and to make treaties with the other countries just look up both and see the good side to government and expand on those because true anarchy will oppose all things that the government do but there is no true anarchy because the masses will always need a leader to blame a leader to look towards and in anarchy there is no leader but all anarchist anymore say they want that but most just want themselves to be a leader and they know that the current system will not allow them any real power

Answer 5

Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow for people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid 19th century, with its notion of freedom as being based upon political and economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the nation-state and large-scale industrial capitalism, and the corruption that came with their successes.

Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would prevail in a stateless society, ranging from complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of private property and free market competition. For example, most forms of anarchism, such as that of anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, or anarcho-primitivism not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems that they perceive as authoritarian, which includes capitalism, wage labor, and private property. In opposition, another form known as anarcho-capitalism argues that a society without a state is a free market system that is both voluntarist and equitable.

The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. Whether because of this or a desire to differentiate themselves from individualist anarchists some activists (primarily during the late nineteenth century) self-identified as libertarian socialists. In more recent times anti-authoritarian has offered another similar self-identification. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action.

It would be bad...there is no limits.

Answer 6

As others have mentioned, you're really contradicting yourself here--anarchism is about the *lack* of government. It's like talking about *black* as a color, really, technically it makes no sense since black is visible because of a *lack* or absence of light.

Generally speaking, that absence is the major bad thing about Anarchy as a guiding principle. On the one hand, if you are rich or strong, you get a free ride, you get to do what you want....but most folks are *not*, generally speaking, rich or strong enough to stay at the top of the food chain all of their lives. And in particular, pure anarchism becomes morally repellent when children get beaten by their parents openly, when old people are beaten down and left to die in a gutter with *no* recourse, and when people who are blind and in wheelchairs are left to die in a world that refuses to help them fend for themselves.

Really. We have laws against the clear and obvious stuff, like stealing and killing, for a reason. We have politics for a reason. Life itself would be a constant nightmare of violence and death under pure anarchy. This is why the anarchists' flag is traditionally red and black, the red is for bloodshed and the black is for death.

Pure anarchism just doesn't happen, not even out in nature. Even chimpanzees have politics of a primitive sort, a system of helping out friends and mutual back-scratching. Or nit-picking as it were.

So what's the fuss about? Simply this....people resort to a politics of *impure*, one-way anarchism whenever the Rich People in a society have nearly *all* of the power, and the rest of the people--poor or not--have nearly none. If "the State", broadly put to mean the Powers That Be, governmental or otherwise, can't be fixed, then people resort to "Smashing the State" or rising up against the Powers That Be.

One could rightfully argue that the American Revolution, executed under the Articles of Confederation, was an example of Impure Anarchism at its finest: the people rose up, stuck down an overpowering enemy, and sincerely tried, *at first*, to use this opportunity to *do better than this*.

At least that was the case *At First*. But then the *local* Rich Men realized they had more in common with the Lords and Ladies overseas than they did with the ordinary people they *fought with*, and so the Constitution was drafted, to codify and put limits on freedom in such a way that *wealth* was preserved, as broadly as possible.

The Miracle of it all is that things didn't turn out worse than what they did...and that eventually we were able to *correct* the worst bits of the Constitution, if in a halting, half-hearted way. ^_~ I gather it's because the People remained sincere even if their *leaders* did not, and the system that was set up had at least *some* measures (elections, checks and balances) to hold the leaders to account.

But I digress. Point is, pure anarchism--an absence of all Law and Order basically--just doesn't work, because it allows things to slip too much into a state of Kill Or Get Killed, and it allows too many people to *die* that don't deserve it.

And with Impure anarchism, even so, you end up with things going wrong as often as not. Anarchism is itself a *destructive* policy, it burns away that which does not work. But the burning itself doesn't guarantee a replacement that *will work*. For every American Revolution, you end up with a *dozen* other cases that resemble the fall of post-Roman Empire Europe into chaos, looting, and eventually Feudalism (whereby people sign contracts and committ their *grandchildren* to being a Vassal for a Lord, not just themselves but their whole family).

So that is it in a nutshell. Don't be surprised if your teacher reads Yahoo Answers as well though, and *flunks you* for copying and pasting language well *above* your own grade level. ^_^ At least *try* to put all of this in *your own words*, ok?

Answer 7

To paraphrase what the great philosopher Hobbes once said the life of a man without government is nasty brutish and short. Without Government to protect them many things would be unable to exist, hospitals stores etc... There would be little or no long distance commerce so such goods as fresh fruit and coffee would only exist in the regions they grow in. Also, there would be governance, the strong would subjugate the weak.

Answer 8

Anarchy is the absence of organized rule, therefore no government. There is no such thing as an Anarchy Government.

Answer 9

First of all...Anarchy is the lack of a government...there is no such thing as an "Anarchy government." That's like saying there's a living corpse

Answer 10

You mean aside from the total lack of law and order, and the fact that anyone can exploit anybody as they see fit?

Anarchy has been tried in the past, and it always results in Feudalism or a dictatorship, as the total lack of government just doesn't work.