| 
Anarchy, as we would like to believe it, is being confused with an autocracy, in which case a nation runs itself without the need for laws or enforcement of said laws. Everyone would know exactly what to do in every situation, and because of the high-risk predicament, there would be no margin for error; if a mistake was made, we would all be fucked, basically. I see alot of posts talking about "true anarchy". It's ironic, because true anarchy, as I have always seen it, is at least more practical than the type of anarchy that is, as I said, alot closer to autocracy than anything else. Anarchy is giving up on the government, and deciding that the hell society would face as a result of it would still be better than the laws a particular government put in place for its citizens to follow. Anarchy gets a bad rap, but it would undoubtedly be a better alternative for the self-sufficient, yet oppressed, citizens of third-world countries being ran by corrupt dictators. If you can picture living in Iraq (during Saddam's reign) for a day, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind being forced to live your life with at least the opportunity of success. After all, anarchy would promote the survival of the fittest, and if anything, should be considered "fair". Even still, it would never work. Too many people have faith in their governments, regardless of how corrupt, misguided, or unlawful they may be. It would take a majority effort for an anarchy to succeed, and that majority would almost definitely have to include assistance from the military, which would then define it as a coup. It's not the worst idea for a "government" (anarchy is a form of government in the same sense that atheism is technically a "religion" that I've heard, but it certainly is the least likely to ever take place.
"He who refuses to seek will never learn"
|