Is anarchy even plausible right now?

Question

What I was wondering about anarchy and crushing "the man" and all that is, why would anyone smart enough to assess political choices and determine that the solution to end political problems is a reveloution that would endanger millions of peoples lives? While I admit Bush is not doing a great job either, communism and socialism don't work, just look at China.

Is the problem stupid people and hyper-extreme liberals ( note that liberal isn't a bad thing in moderation- just look it up.) who are too stupid to recognize one bad alternative (communism.) from the slightly imperfect capitalism? Or can you think of a better and plausible solution to these problems besides anarchy. Preferably stopping the patriot act?

Actually, what are these problems about capitalism? Is the unequal distribution of wealth better than the equal distribution of poverty? And how would the threat of constantly getting shot or blown up better than having a bad president?

Answer 1

Anarchy is never plausible

Answer 2

I think what we've discovered is that purely one type of government doesn't work. They are all bad when practiced in the extreme. There are more options than having a bad president OR being shot. Like....having a good president.

The problem with extreme capitalism is that EVERYthing is for sale at the cheapest possible price. This includes your labor, your scruples, your children, your health. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it.....period. Kid needs immunizations, your problem. House on fire....your problem. Need a road to your house....your problem. Granny needs chemo? Your problem.
Actually, you can learn a lot by looking at modern China getting its first taste of capitalism. Lots of success and riches, but pollution is killing people, children are being kidnapped to work in mines, corporations are throwing farmers off their land, companies adding unsafe chemicals to the products they export (dog food, tooth paste, medicine.)
No single system of organizing government is perfect, but anarchy is never the answer.

Answer 3

I don't agree with the being shot or blown up, actually I think our current government is the best possible, even though we have a retarded president now, the people can vote, anarchy isn't right, we need someone in control, the people aren't ready for a change in government

Answer 4

You need to check out Emma Goldman. Also, a book called Property is Theft, can't recall the author... anyway, basically anarchy is order. society would have to be broken up into anarchist communes to run effectively (oxymoron? we don't think so). if everybody looks out for the other, we can still have institutions which help people, just without hierarchy and government. I can only speak for myself, though. :)

Answer 5

Anarchy is never plausible or even desirable. The reason it isn't is this: if we have anarchy, then why shouldn't I shoot you or chop your feet off just for fun?

Anarchy would never last for more than a couple of weeks before someone would set themselves up as a warlord with a gang of thugs under their control and bossing other people around. No more anarchy after that.

Answer 6

I think I can mind my own business much better without the burden of enriching the rich and empowering the powerful - who are nothing but parasites whatever they try hyde that from me.
So yes, I am for *total* anarchy! But... it's the rich and powerful who won't ever allow such a thing.

Answer 7

If you define anarchy as "no law" then anarchy is alive and kicking when money and cronyism allow for law-breakers to walk away from paying thier dues to society when they are convicted of a crime.

It appears that laws take a back seat to the power of money and self interest.

If you define anarchy as "no rule" then I would say that anarchy does not exist. It is the most powerful that rules in the end.

Answer 8

You supposedly posed a question,which is a series of words seeking an answer,terminating with a question mark..?????? Do you realize you actually asked seven questions??

Answer 9

Anarchy is never plausible, but always desirable.

Answer 10

If more white women start dating black men, I think the angry white men will go totally crazy and revolt. Too bad white men are dating Asian women left and right, and white women don't get all threatened by it and throw a bunch of racist slurs around. White men have a lot of resentment toward black men under the surface (as we can see by the volumes of racist stuff white men write here). Soon, I'm afraid we'll be in an all-out race war.