Reasons why I am not anarchist (1ST POST EDITED)

[bfdhshsgvjggh]

I am not a fascist by any means, though I do believe the concept and idea behind a governing body is appealling and necessary. On the other hand, I do fully understand reasons for anarchism. The basics of its establishment, the idea that people rather than governments should control their own fates, is admittedly somewhat noble. I am all for the little guy having more power. However, I find fault with the objective of the anarchists: abolishing governments and all ruling systems that dictate human life. Sure. But for everyone who proposes the destruction of such systems as government and organized religion in favour of the people, I ask a simple question:

"Have you actually met the people?"


Not to boast, but I've been around the world quite a bit, and I've met a large number of people in my life. I feel I can say in all honesty that I have met "the people" anarchists vouch so strongly for. I'm not impressed. In fact, it makes me worried in a way. My belief is as follows.

For one, if we were to abolish governing systems and let people run their own lives, this would mean letting EVERYONE run their own lives. I do think chaos would ensue, for a very long time. Gun-nuts would fire at the people they didn't approve of, arsonists would start fires without concern, NAMBLA members and 4Chan regulars would crawl from their basements looking for fun...It would be like a war with no sides. It may sound like an exaggeration, but consider a world devoid of rulers for just a moment. In my head, you can almost smell the burning cars. It's not a good smell.

You may argue that people will use their own logic and reason to guide them through troubled times. To which I ask: ever seen someone trampled to death as people flee a war scene or burning wreck? Under the right and wrong circumstances, a human will forget all logic and push through a field of old ladies if it means saving their own hide. People might use reason, sure, but only if that reasoning applies to their own interests.

Humans, in my exerpience, suffer from one major sin rather than the usual seven we're familiar with: pride. Arrogance. It comes in many forms, and it results in many bad things happening. Arrogant people are convinced they are the s**t, and everyone else is simply s**t. Many are sharks who have a tendency to pick apart people that don't fit into their world, and strive for success so that they can be happy and nobody else. There's others who feel there is no point to life, think they have broken life's Da Vinci code, and will never truly be happy unless everyone realizes this "universal truth" they think they have uncovered. We have those among us who think they are edgy, witty and clever, and don't believe people who are all of the above are somehow wrong and deserve absolutely nothing.

Notice how I mentioned continually that people tear apart those who aren't like them, those they aren't familiar with. It's a big, big fault. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong." The only thing keeping many of these people from busting out and murdering everyone they don't find cool on site is the fear of being arrested, or the fear of retribution from the government. If not for that, I probably would have been stuck on a pike in Juniour High. They need to be kept in check for our sakes.


I also strongly believe this because of the population of earth at the moment. If human life totalled a billion in total, then maybe just maybe we'd be better off without governments. But with six billion people on the planet, we need to be monitored in some way. I don't mean in the Big Brother Is Watching You kind of way, mind. I'm talking about a competent government system dedicated to ensuring that people are happy and not murdering each other.


This leads into my solution. Anarchism is a political/social view that was born because of poor government decisions and serious faults brought about by arrogant, apathetic and, in many cases, megalomaniacal members of the ruling classes. In other words: BAD LEADERS. If our government makes a crippling mistake, our solution should not be to abolish the entire system. That is a typical human response: destroy what we don't like. No, our solution should be to get BETTER LEADERS instead. Think about it: Conservativism is not a necessarily bad government system. It just needs better representatives, people who don't treat and mistreat others based on race or creed or class. Same goes for systems like organized religion. Catholicism causing a ruckus? The best solution would most likely be to get a better Pope, one who doesn't think AIDS is the fault of the victim or that homosexuality is a sign of evil.


The reason why I believe this is because I don't believe that people set up government systems willingly knowing that they would be controlling the braindead masses. How many inventions of mankind were intentionally created to hurt others? Not many. It's all about useage. Consider the Wright Brothers, some of my favourite inventors. They had a simple dream, to be able to fly above the clouds and look down on the people. I doubt strongly that they wanted their invention to be used for transporting drugs or dropping bombs on natives. Also, wasn't gunpowder originally used for fireworks in Asia, rather than cannons and muskets? These are potentially good inventions, we just need to take care of how they are used.


Perhaps I'm full of hot air. Perhaps all this is just the insane ramblings of a Canadian with nothing better to do on a Sunday night. Perhaps I don't see the angles of the angels, or how much damage the idea of government has ACTUALLY caused. Perhaps it is not rulers but the system that is damaging, and I'm just another puppet of the system.

I don't know.

Why don't you, the viewers at home, tell me?


**EDIT: Silly me, lumping Libertarianism into this category. Thanks, Strideo!**  

[Strideo]

Hello Mister Kojiro-san! ^_^

Well, I would like to point out the major difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. You are right that anarchists believe that all forms of government are bad and should be abolished. Anarchists seem to think that somehow we could forge a society without political rule or government oversight however the logical end to this would be a society where the individual is solely responsible for protecting their own rights and then how long would it be before the strong rule over the weak? Warlords would arise, leaders would take control, and we would be right back where we started (or worse) very shortly.

Libertarians do not believe in a society completely free of political authority, they believe in the rule of law and that induvidual rights should be protected by the law. Libertarians do believe in minimizing the role of the state as much as possible but they do not believe in the total abolishment of government. An ideal government would be one that is dedicated to the cause of preserving liberty and protecting individuals' rights to their life, their property, and their freedom.

Libertarians believe in the freedom of association and therefore the freedom to gather in organized religious institutions, private organizations, and business enterprises.

The philosophy of liberty does not grant NAMBLA members and "4Chan regulars" the freedom nor the right to crawl forth and violate the rights of women and chilren or gun-nuts to indiscriminately fire upon those they dislike. Liberty is for everyone and not just for those strong enough to impose their will on others.

So to sum it up, again, anarchists naively believe in a society free of governmental authority by wich everyones rights are protected by their own strength and the virtue of society in general. Libertarians on the other hand believe in the right of the people to inlist the aid of government to help protect peoples' rights, help settle disputes, and defend against foreign powers. Libertarians also believe that the people still hold these rights themselves, therefore you have the right to use force to protect your life, your freedom, and your property.

I happen to consider myself to be a libertarian. Sure, I don't toe the party line on every issue when it comes to the official Libertarian Party, but I do feel that the libertarian philosophy may just save my nation from authoritarian rule. I believe that the libertarian philosophy is ethical and it rings true. I have met many people who are confused as to the difference between libertarianism and anarchism and so as one who is a libertarian himself I feel a responsibilty to inform. 3nodding

Anyhow, I hope I haven't been too repetitive or ramblesom here. xp  

[bfdhshsgvjggh]

Sire of the Strides,

You were actually a lot more informative than most people I talked to regarding this issue. I was told by my associates that Libertarianism was like anarchism but less violent. Seems they, and in turn I, were wrong. They will be fired shortly.

My post will be redone accordingly.

-KDash  

[J-E-O-C]

assuming a managed scenerio anarchy is possible given the right group of people. the problem is that if any of the people in an anarchic system doesnt do what is required of someone the system goes spiralling down hill. It isnt an impossibility but it is one of the harder systems of association  

[Strideo]

Ever-Infamous Kojiro-san

Sire of the Strides,

You were actually a lot more informative than most people I talked to regarding this issue. I was told by my associates that Libertarianism was like anarchism but less violent. Seems they, and in turn I, were wrong. They will be fired shortly.

My post will be redone accordingly.

-KDash

Oh, thank you! Glad I could be of help.

jeoc

assuming a managed scenerio anarchy is possible given the right group of people. the problem is that if any of the people in an anarchic system doesnt do what is required of someone the system goes spiralling down hill. It isnt an impossibility but it is one of the harder systems of association

You are quite right. In fact anarchy has been practiced in small isolated groups all over the globe. Small scattered frontiere homesteads in west Pennsylvania during the early 1750's might be a good example. Just out of the effective reach of the colonial government, no one settler is considered the leader of the others, they form a lose society with certain social expectations but no real law. It isn't really all that chaotic untill the French & Indian War then all hell breaks loose.

Anarchy has worked in small isolated communities but as the population grows it usually breaks apart into a more lawful and governed society. I can't think of any examlpe of a functioning mass-anarchist society.  

[CabooseRIF]

I don't really like the idea of anarchy, i mean i understand goverments can be unfair, but like you said, without government there would be total chaos. i mean back when there were 50,000 people in the world, maybe that system worked, but we have a lot more people today, and someone has to lead. Some people need to be lead, and others need to lead.