Why are you asking this question again?
2007-05-14 07:03:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Liberal City 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Only in states. In anarchies the rich people are the people who use violence. However, the rich countries all have well functioning states. All anarchies today are poor countries. So evidently, the rich countries are those who do not engage in such inefficient practices as settling disputes by violence, but instead set up a law system with a monopoly on violence, i.e. a state.
The connection between ownership and use is very close to a fundamental tenant of anarchism. I've been studying anarchism for about a decade now, and I could not generate a coherent picture of what "anarchy" meant until someone introduced the paradigm that ownership derives from use. Furthermore, I am not aware of any anarchists who rejects that paradigm. I'm not sure what "anarcho-capitalists" think about it, but it's telling that they are generally considered to be a separate tradition from the rest of anarchism.
Application of the use->ownership paradigm would necessarily require the elimination of the state (since there's no basis for state ownership of any resource), so inevitably leads to anarchism.
The use->ownership paradigm could be considered "socialist", but only if anarchism is itself considered to be a branch of socialism.
The use->ownership paradigm is incompatible with "socialism" as it is defined at the top of the page, and incompatible with how the term "socialism" is used in the rest of the page.
For all those reasons, I think it would be a better fit for "anarchism" rather than "socialism". However, it could be that it wouldn't fit in either of those pages, and would be better off in a page about ownership. Using that organizational scheme, the discussion of anarchy would be better off as a discussion of the state or government...while socialism and anarchy could be organizational pages that link a number of debates that are associated with either ideology.
2007-05-14 07:08:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Brite Tiger 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Anarchy is a form of government the same way Ice Hockey is a form of needlepoint.
To help you with your homework, though, anarchy is a great idea if it wasn't for people. If humans could be trusted to do the right thing for society rather than themselves (Which isn't to say they can't help themselves, too. Just not only themselves to te exclusion of society), without needing laws to enforce this behavior, then anarchy would, in fact, be the ideal system for society.
Keep in mind, despite the negative connotations the word holds, anarchy does not imply chaos, or even lack of order. It simply means that there's nobody telling others what to do.
2007-05-14 08:46:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
My opinion:freedom is good in anarchy,you'll never get lost in a bureaucracy like in almost every other form of government mainly because there is none.
Anarchy is the rejection of government,people living like people and not like citizens,that is good in theory.
Here are some interesting sites on the subject.
2007-05-14 07:07:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by justgoodfolk 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Eight pages? Damn that's a lot. Two pages if you write big would be about right. I guess it's typing these days. Does anyone write papers in long hand anymore?
Ok. Use a big font then.
Start with wikipedia.org
Look into the writings of Emma Goldman.
2007-05-16 07:36:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by sal 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) Wise guys rule your neighborhood.
2) No IRS, but the wise guys will want "protection" money.
3) No crime and no prisons. Everybody steals from you at their liking.
4) No Big Gvt. No Interstate, no schools, no hospitals.
5) No police. That may be bad or good depending on how you intend to support your family.
6) No civilization. Basically, you become a sort of gorilla in the mist.
2007-05-14 07:09:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Catch 22 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Anarchy is not a form of government. Anarchy is everyone doing what they want regardless of how that effects others or society in general. There is no way to effectively govern, maintain law and order, or protect the rights of individuals if everyone is doing what they want, when they want, without consideration into how their actions affect everyone else.
2007-05-14 07:05:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by msi_cord 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
anarchy is the theory that if we got rid of govt, police and everything, then people would only take what they needed and no more - that way there would be no crime, no poverty, no injustice. A nice dream, but obviously they were amazingly optimistic about human nature!!
2007-05-14 07:11:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by bregweidd 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's gonna be tough seening as how anarchism is the total absence of government...
2007-05-14 07:03:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ryan F 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Anarchy is not a form of government.
2007-05-14 07:02:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't think there is a good point unless all of the people have good values and are concerned about each other. Otherwise, it can turn to pandemonium.
2007-05-14 07:07:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Lori B 6
·
0⤊
1⤋