Anarchy Would it work today?

[BooZker 0]

Adriantc i read your whole post and found it very in depth. I was wondering in your goverment what if the leader becomes corrupted? How much does he get paid? Would your people have any say? Not any person is perfect and what if he makes a bad decision?

The problem with my goverment would be even if they did not become corrupted people could get propaganda and try to kick them out of office. Another problem is that in any office like that the people who get elected have to have money. The reason they need money is to advertise them selfs.

I think it is sad in America that there is countries in Africa where little kids are be raped and slaughtered, but we are in Iraq. To me this makes no sence. Then again it does. George Bush is president for 8 years. Not that long. After he is out he will have all this oil money. I would call it his retirement money.

In your goverment will there be any co, vice leader? Will he be at the same level as all the other people in the income sence? Because in communism there is really only 2 classes. pour and wealthy.

And this quote i strongly disagree with.

A great ruler can't be a weak one, he must be feared in a certain degree.

Look at George W. Bush, does anyone fear him? haha! Look at his quotes that make no sence.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Edited May 1, 2006 by BooZker (see edit history)

[adriantc 0]

adriantc honestly your country is no different to the UK in many ways. We may look richer but trust me we are getting taxed so much that we get pennies for our work now whilst the MP's and tony blair gets a pay rise. No matter what government you have in and no matter who is in corruption is the only constant in a government; from the top to the bottom any government is corrupt in one way or another. For exmaple the great country of america, (hope this part dont offend americans but I dont really like george bush) is ruled by a man with a need to venge his father and gain money via oil. Has anyone ever seen the farhient 9/11 film or what ever its called that tells the truth about george bush. Did you know he worked for the arabs in the oil industry and did you ever relise he might have jus gone into iraq for:
1/ to venge his father who was stopped by the UN
2/ for the oil

so you see adriantc corruption is everywhere in a goverrnment...you jus sometime have to either learn to "live with it or go against the government.

democracy is no differnt to anything even anarchy beccause in anarchy everyone is for themselves which means corruption would be rampant.

I only have to touch on one last subject when it while adraintc is on the whole government thing and thats russia. I saw a program lately about russia and have come to the conclusion that their government is not democracy at all. I called these bunch con-artists; there are a few governments out there like this that are actually either hiding the turth or jus are a bunch of thugs who want to sound posh and intelligent. so beware jus becuase it says its a democracy doesnt always mean it is.

Anyway ive said enough on that subject.

It may seem alike, but I'm sure it is not. I'm sure in the UK when they want to steal some public money they usually do not make it in front of everybody. Well in Romania they simply do not care, just a month or two ago the press discovered that our ex-prim-minister has a dead cousin who left him over 2 million $ and lands worth another 2 million $ + jewellery worth over 400.000$. The sad thing is that he got away with it, well he hasn't actually but the trial is going nowhere since.
Anyway... I have seen a TV show yesterday about schools in the Uk. And they wanted to switch the menu of kids from burgers (semiprepared food) to cooked food. Of course the kids didn't like it, but was amazed when I saw that a cook complained that she worked 2 hours extra without getting paid for it. My father which has a 10 times greater responsibility and works 2 hours extra everyday doesn't get half as much as that cook gets. That is the difference, so you can consider yourself lucky.

Adriantc i read your whole post and found it very in depth. I was wondering in your goverment what if the leader becomes corrupted? How much does he get paid? Would your people have any say? Not any person is perfect and what if he makes a bad decision?
The problem with my goverment would be even if they did not become corrupted people could get propaganda and try to kick them out of office. Another problem is that in any office like that the people who get elected have to have money. The reason they need money is to advertise them selfs.

I think it is sad in America that there is countries in Africa where little kids are be raped and slaughtered, but we are in Iraq. To me this makes no sence. Then again it does. George Bush is president for 8 years. Not that long. After he is out he will have all this oil money. I would call it his retirement money.

In your goverment will there be any co, vice leader? Will he be at the same level as all the other people in the income sence? Because in communism there is really only 2 classes. pour and wealthy.

And this quote i strongly disagree with.

Look at George W. Bush, does anyone fear him? haha! Look at his quotes that make no sence.

That is why I have said that this upper class must function independently of society. As long as there is no temptation and they have very stong moral values they will be close to incoruptible. He will get paid the midium salary in that country. He will have a car, a regular one so he will not live in luxury. If he wants to get more he only has to do make the economy work better and drive the medium salary up. In my opinion this salary policy should be written in the constitution so they will not, like they do today, vote their own salary. In other words, they will have enough money to live a decent life.. If they want more they will have to work better.
Bad decisions... well there isn't much we can do. Since I would give the whole power to a single person there is no room for a second decision. It is the downside of the system. Nothing is perfect, but as I said we can minimize the risk as much as possible. A constitution must exist anyhow. He must have some sort of advisers specialized in different parts of society like economy, history etc. The minister system, or something similer must exist, and people from the same upper class must have that ministers.
Like a conclusion... the decision making part must be totaly independent from ordinary people. They mustn't have any direct links with the people so they will not be corruptible.

As far as the 911 events I think you are totaly right. Since you are an american it is good to know that Bush's propaganda machine hasn't reached that far. For those of you who can't understand why the war on terrorism took place I suggest you read George Orwell's 1984. The quote from this book which is also at the end of Fahrenheit 911 describes the best the war against terrorism:

"It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.
A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

For those who still believe in Bush and his war... read the book... it will change your perspective!
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Edited May 2, 2006 by adriantc (see edit history)

[Foxtrot 0]

Personally I think that Anarchy would work. First off, it doesn't mean that people would be running rampage about the streets in cold blood, but it would basically be just like it is now. The only real difference is the absence of the greedy governments of the world. I love the idea of Anarchy, but sadly I know it would never happen, seeing as the governments of today are just too big and mighty to bring down. Good luck to whoever dreams of a day were you can sleep through school

[BooZker 0]

Your right about people running around crazy. First off why woulld they do that. I know someone posted something like that. I mean it worked fine for the Indians. Well, until "Americans" killed them and took there land for there own. haha

at little big horn national cemetery, there's a monument that reads: "to the soldiers killed in montana while clearing hostile indians away... '

Does that make sence? Well duh there going to be hostile. They were stealing there land.

[adriantc 0]

Personally I think that Anarchy would work. First off, it doesn't mean that people would be running rampage about the streets in cold blood, but it would basically be just like it is now. The only real difference is the absence of the greedy governments of the world.
I love the idea of Anarchy, but sadly I know it would never happen, seeing as the governments of today are just too big and mighty to bring down. Good luck to whoever dreams of a day were you can sleep through school

I don't agree with you. Everywhere you go you will find rules, if there are no rules people will do whatever they want. Of course others will act as they do today but not all of us have a strong moral fiber. Even with all the rules and the laws people still kill each other and even with all the civilization there comes a madman who eats his friend. So don't put too much faith in human nature. After all we are only human...

[morosophos 0]

ANARCHY

 

 

Anarchy is certainly an ideal. Such a state where none are governed or restricted seems to be utopian. However, there are several problems with it (keep in mind that I myself work towards a stateless society).

 

Let us take the institution of anarchy, for example:

 

The institution of anarchy is extremely difficult and improbable. Governments have the tendency to gain more and more power and have not the tendency to give any bit of it up. There are, however, instances where a government was forced to part with some of its power (such as the American Revolution, the signing of the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, etc), but these were nowhere near what one would need to institute true anarchy.

 

And then there is a far more difficult problem to contend with:

 

Let presume that there is a way to institute true anarchy, a coup d'etat in full, and the government has been dismantled. Now there is no ruler whatsoever, and the people are entirely free.

 

Now, for everyone living in America, they know what happens when government regulation suddenly ceases; so many saw the events after hurricane Katrina. Many remaining citizens of New Orleans reverted to a sort of natural law where "look out for no. 1" is the only law. Some did so for justifiable reasons, such as the need for clean food and water. Others, however, were robbing stores of money and hauling off big screen televisions. Thus, we can assume that this will happen after the institution of anarchy.

 

However, let's assume that this period will be only temporary. People will inevitably have to learn to coexist, or else they will all perish. Soon the era of violence and natural law comes to an end, and a sort of peace pervades the country.

 

Now, everyone is perfectly fine for the time being. But as time wears on, there are needs of things. Crops must be sown and harvested, factories must be run, roads must be prepared, and so on. Obviously private business still exists (for only cockroaches and corporations can survive even a nuclear war), so they can take care of a few of these things. However, what is the means of wage? This is not a problem in a smaller society, for bartering is still a viable option, so life goes on.

 

What if we don't have a small society??Let's say we want anarchy in the United States. So then what is the means of wage? Bartering only works on a small scale efficiently, so there has to be specie or other form of monetary note. The origin of these is evident in the United States: the Federal Reserve, which just so happens to be a private corporation of its own.

 

Workers now have incentive to work, so those necessary things such as road repair can be done. A sense of rugged individualism develops among everyone, as it should, so that they can take matters primarily into their own hands when it comes to getting the essentials accomplished. Now we have wages, roads, and crops, and everything seems to be working.

 

But what if a group of people isn't getting the resources they need? Pure capitalism without regulation is hard on the worker, and robber barons of sorts have arisen who pay their workers unjust dues. Inequitable distribution of income has upset these workers, and now they must resort to stealing as a means to maintain self-sustainance. They go in a pack to another neighbourhood, which is of better means, and rape/pillage everything there. Clearly this behaviour is unacceptable, so there has to be justice and retribution in some fashion. Rugged individualism would dictate that some citizens would bind together to form a "Justice Faction." The Justice Faction goes and deals retribution to these criminals, deterring others from committing the same crime and protecting every other individual. The Justice Faction realises they are good at what they do, and so an entrepreneur takes over and runs it.

 

Money is really becoming an issue now. Not only is the distribution of income a major problem, but also there is inflation as well as missed opportunities to trade with non-anarchist countries. First, the growing chasm between the rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate, and something must be done. Riots are forming out in the streets, barely kept subdued by the Justice Faction, who are payed healthy sums of money by the newage robber barons. Realising they are no good split apart, the workers unionise and in one accord declare that they need better wages and conditions. The corporation then decides that it is in its own interest to comply with the union, so that it is not without workers. Second, Inflation is the fault of the Federal Reserve, which has no regulation. Rugged individualism again dictates that common citizens refuse to take any more of their dwindling wage and rising prices, so they decide to take action. A few influential individuals manage to worm their ways in to advising the Fed, or perhaps the Fed itself delegates a few members to an advisory board. Third, in order to trade with non-anarchist nations, envoys must serve as representatives to the foreign nations. As most international trade is conducted by transnational corporations, there is little need of government intervention in trade as it is now. Corporations fund their own envoys to represent them respectively to trade with foreign nations their exports to gain imports, which the corporations will then in turn resell to consumers at home.

 

Everything is running smoothly now, which seems to be a good thing at first. However, the idea of a government-less state has whetted the appetite of some more imperialistic nation, which fully intends to invade the anarchy state. The first attack is launched, and everyone realises the danger almost immediately. The Justice Faction jumps to alert and begins to fight off the enemy. It becomes very evident, though, that the Justice Faction does not have the resources available to them to launch a counterattack. More funds and weapons are needed. The Fed, which is a monopoly on all banks, even in the Anarchist States of America, decides that it's in its best interest to donate funds to the Justice Faction, despite inflationary risks. However, the inevitable happens, and inflation goes through the roof, which doesn't even help the Justice Faction, because now the price of weapons has skyrocketed. In the interests of all, the Justice Faction and the Fed become one entity. Now no troublesome monetary transaction has to be made from the Fed to the J.F. to fight the war.

 

But what is this? An entity that both regulates/serves the economy and dispenses of proper justice? This sounds an awful lot to me like a government. A government has arisen out of the anarchy!

 

Human nature plays a role in government:

 

Some argue that a government goes against human nature, which is ideally not to be governed and to do what mankind pleases. However, this world of governments is nature. What you see is what has developed naturally. Therefore, it is truly in mankind's nature for now to be governed.

 

We have a long way to go for anarchy.

[adriantc 0]

ANARCHY

Anarchy is certainly an ideal. Such a state where none are governed or restricted seems to be utopian. However, there are several problems with it (keep in mind that I myself work towards a stateless society).

 

Let us take the institution of anarchy, for example:

 

The institution of anarchy is extremely difficult and improbable. Governments have the tendency to gain more and more power and have not the tendency to give any bit of it up. There are, however, instances where a government was forced to part with some of its power (such as the American Revolution, the signing of the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, etc), but these were nowhere near what one would need to institute true anarchy.

 

And then there is a far more difficult problem to contend with:

 

Let presume that there is a way to institute true anarchy, a coup d'etat in full, and the government has been dismantled. Now there is no ruler whatsoever, and the people are entirely free.

 

Now, for everyone living in America, they know what happens when government regulation suddenly ceases; so many saw the events after hurricane Katrina. Many remaining citizens of New Orleans reverted to a sort of natural law where "look out for no. 1" is the only law. Some did so for justifiable reasons, such as the need for clean food and water. Others, however, were robbing stores of money and hauling off big screen televisions. Thus, we can assume that this will happen after the institution of anarchy.

 

However, let's assume that this period will be only temporary. People will inevitably have to learn to coexist, or else they will all perish. Soon the era of violence and natural law comes to an end, and a sort of peace pervades the country.

 

Now, everyone is perfectly fine for the time being. But as time wears on, there are needs of things. Crops must be sown and harvested, factories must be run, roads must be prepared, and so on. Obviously private business still exists (for only cockroaches and corporations can survive even a nuclear war), so they can take care of a few of these things. However, what is the means of wage? This is not a problem in a smaller society, for bartering is still a viable option, so life goes on.

 

What if we don't have a small society?Let's say we want anarchy in the United States. So then what is the means of wage? Bartering only works on a small scale efficiently, so there has to be specie or other form of monetary note. The origin of these is evident in the United States: the Federal Reserve, which just so happens to be a private corporation of its own.

 

Workers now have incentive to work, so those necessary things such as road repair can be done. A sense of rugged individualism develops among everyone, as it should, so that they can take matters primarily into their own hands when it comes to getting the essentials accomplished. Now we have wages, roads, and crops, and everything seems to be working.

 

But what if a group of people isn't getting the resources they need? Pure capitalism without regulation is hard on the worker, and robber barons of sorts have arisen who pay their workers unjust dues. Inequitable distribution of income has upset these workers, and now they must resort to stealing as a means to maintain self-sustainance. They go in a pack to another neighbourhood, which is of better means, and rape/pillage everything there. Clearly this behaviour is unacceptable, so there has to be justice and retribution in some fashion. Rugged individualism would dictate that some citizens would bind together to form a "Justice Faction." The Justice Faction goes and deals retribution to these criminals, deterring others from committing the same crime and protecting every other individual. The Justice Faction realises they are good at what they do, and so an entrepreneur takes over and runs it.

 

Money is really becoming an issue now. Not only is the distribution of income a major problem, but also there is inflation as well as missed opportunities to trade with non-anarchist countries. First, the growing chasm between the rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate, and something must be done. Riots are forming out in the streets, barely kept subdued by the Justice Faction, who are payed healthy sums of money by the newage robber barons. Realising they are no good split apart, the workers unionise and in one accord declare that they need better wages and conditions. The corporation then decides that it is in its own interest to comply with the union, so that it is not without workers. Second, Inflation is the fault of the Federal Reserve, which has no regulation. Rugged individualism again dictates that common citizens refuse to take any more of their dwindling wage and rising prices, so they decide to take action. A few influential individuals manage to worm their ways in to advising the Fed, or perhaps the Fed itself delegates a few members to an advisory board. Third, in order to trade with non-anarchist nations, envoys must serve as representatives to the foreign nations. As most international trade is conducted by transnational corporations, there is little need of government intervention in trade as it is now. Corporations fund their own envoys to represent them respectively to trade with foreign nations their exports to gain imports, which the corporations will then in turn resell to consumers at home.

 

Everything is running smoothly now, which seems to be a good thing at first. However, the idea of a government-less state has whetted the appetite of some more imperialistic nation, which fully intends to invade the anarchy state. The first attack is launched, and everyone realises the danger almost immediately. The Justice Faction jumps to alert and begins to fight off the enemy. It becomes very evident, though, that the Justice Faction does not have the resources available to them to launch a counterattack. More funds and weapons are needed. The Fed, which is a monopoly on all banks, even in the Anarchist States of America, decides that it's in its best interest to donate funds to the Justice Faction, despite inflationary risks. However, the inevitable happens, and inflation goes through the roof, which doesn't even help the Justice Faction, because now the price of weapons has skyrocketed. In the interests of all, the Justice Faction and the Fed become one entity. Now no troublesome monetary transaction has to be made from the Fed to the J.F. to fight the war.

 

But what is this? An entity that both regulates/serves the economy and dispenses of proper justice? This sounds an awful lot to me like a government. A government has arisen out of the anarchy!

 

Human nature plays a role in government:

 

Some argue that a government goes against human nature, which is ideally not to be governed and to do what mankind pleases. However, this world of governments is nature. What you see is what has developed naturally. Therefore, it is truly in mankind's nature for now to be governed.

 

We have a long way to go for anarchy.

 

That is a well put problem... I have read it all and I find it to be very interesting. Of course your analysis is general, many more factors can influence the outcome but you have expressed what is important. As I have said earlier in a very small group anarchy can work, even for a limited time. But is you take a large group, even the population of a city or a neighborhood and place them on a small territory (so they will need to interact in order to survive) we will see that laws must be in place, someone must rule them. Small population - small odds that something goes wrong. You can imagine the relationships between ten people, but what about ten thousand people. Too many unknows. Too many things that might not work as it should.

So if you consider guverment evil (I don't), it is a necessary evil. Just like in a pack of wolves someone must lead in order to make the pack an efficient one. Separate elements are weak (the pack of wolves would die), put them work together and they will be strong. That is how civilization was built. If we wouldn't have come together we would have never ruled the planet. So anarchy belongs to the dawn of menkind, not to the future of menkind.

[BooZker 0]

Now, for everyone living in America, they know what happens when government regulation suddenly ceases; so many saw the events after hurricane Katrina. Many remaining citizens of New Orleans reverted to a sort of natural law where "look out for no. 1" is the only law. Some did so for justifiable reasons, such as the need for clean food and water. Others, however, were robbing stores of money and hauling off big screen televisions. Thus, we can assume that this will happen after the institution of anarchy.

How can you even use this as an example? This is a disaster. A huge disaster at that. Although i do agree on a lot of what you said, some of it makes no sence such as this.

Money problems would be a huge issue your right. They would only be an issue though if we were going to do a trade with other countries that are not Anarchists. What Americans do not see, but slowly are is that we can live in a country without getting almost everything from another country. We are losing jobs everyday to this. I mean hasnt anyone noticed when you call a 1-800 number is has some guy that does not speak english?

And how would there be a difference in wages? Right now its capitalism at its greatest. They do resort to stealing now. Anarchy though everyone gets paid depending on how the job is. So basketball players would get paid less because they dont give us any resources. Teachers would be getting basketball player salary because they give us an education we can use. Your thinking of Anarcho-capitalism. It is a form of Anarchism, but many anarchists believe that this is NOT a form of Anarchism and many are against it.

HEre is a quote that i like by the most famous Anarchists himself

It is not enough for a handful of experts to attempt the solution of a problem, to solve it and then to apply it. The restriction of knowledge to an elite group destroys the spirit of society and leads to its intellectual impoverishment.
- Albert Einstein

This is America, no? They know so much yet they hold it and dont release the truth. They hide the truth for fear of themselves. George Bush is the perfect example. We didn't go to war over there because of Weapons of mass destruction. If we did George Bush wouldnt be getting tried for war crimes and changing from theres weapons to the war on terror. Did any one notice that? Probably not because he connected the attack on 9/11 to Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with it. So what is the real reason? No one knows. So is it really better to have YOUR leaders LIE to YOUR face? Well if you think so, i dont know what else to say.

[morosophos 0]

The main point of my exemplum is that a governing entity is at this point in human history and development of society a necessary evil. It is entirely within human nature to develop of its own accord a government. Therefore, if an attempt were to be made to have a society without a government, we would quickly see its remanifestation.The revitalisation of the government does not even need to occur by means of a police force. Too easily it may come back through the robber barons mentioned in the exemplum. Even though the government has dissappeared, the people are still in need of goods and employ. In unregulated capitalism, as it has been shown through history, one corporation in each industry tends to get the upper hand and dominate in its particular field. Eventually the owners of their respective corporations may decide it is in their common interest to unite under a single conglomerate, in order to more effeciently manufacture and distribute goods. For all intents and purposes, this is also a government, since one of the primary functions of a government is to determine the means, object, and incidence of manufactures. And surely, even such a conglomerate will have the force of the law, since who would go against the will of the one and only means of production? This situation exists in several soi-disant communist countries, though the situations in each of them are slightly better than they had been. Obviously, none of them could have been nor can be classified as anarchist nations.

[BooZker 0]

The main point of my exemplum is that a governing entity is at this point in human history and development of society a necessary evil. It is entirely within human nature to develop of its own accord a government. Therefore, if an attempt were to be made to have a society without a government, we would quickly see its remanifestation.

There is a difference between Government and Leaders. Anarchist would create leaders, but not a government. Take a look at the definitions.

A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.

Thats Government and here is a Leader

One that leads or guides.

The key word is guides. NOT controls.

[morosophos 0]

Having taken Greek, I know that anarchy literally means "without leader." Anarchy has no leader. Even if it were to have a leader, there is almost no chance that leader would be of such moral strain so as not to take control in addition to whatever guiding he or she may exert upon the nation. But, giving that one leader the benefit of the doubt, there is even smaller a chance that subsequent leaders would follow such a moral strain. Inevitably, someone is going to claim power, either out of ambition, seeking to do what is perceivably best for the country, or out of lost of power. Keep in mind that the nature of anarchy is complete freedom. With freedom comes people who will exercise such freedom; besides certain social maladies such as unfair distribution of wealth and pillaging (even if only temporary, as many claim), there will also be very little social consensus after awhile. Inevitably someone will see in their own eyes a better system of management, and it will be that person's endeavour to mould the nation to suit their political interest. All it takes is for one person to desire a governing entity and anarchy's over, because the anarchist system is one without a sovereign state, namely because it has no sovereignity. Therefore, if someone were to claim dominion over an anarchist state, there is no discrepancy as to whose domionion it is, seeing how there is no contest. In short, enough volition and a strong enough view of a government will end the weaker government. That is, this will be no different than even a native conquistador's "I claim this land in the name of Spain." The end. No more anarchy?there is a ruler who will doubtlessly aim at accomplishing his economic and political ideas either by force or by consent of the people.

 

Anarchy is essentially a return to natural law?the state by which humanity was living before society came together and formed governments. Even anarchists admit this. But this in itself is an argument against anarchy. The natural law phase of humanity was brought to an end by society itself, accomplished through natural means. As long as humans are social creatures, there will be society and hence government.

[tdm 0]

Anarchy would never work, maybe in a few countries but not in many. Most people hang on the every word the govermeant say. If they siad its good to jump off a cliff people would do it.

[BooZker 0]

Inevitably someone will see in their own eyes a better system of management, and it will be that person's endeavour to mould the nation to suit their political interest. All it takes is for one person to desire a governing entity and anarchy's over

I dont think you understand Anarchy, because if you did you would know that people arnt just going to let some leader takeover their freedom. Lets look at it this way:

You have a house or living area right? There is no "goverment" there. There is however, basic rules. If someone were to break into your house and say this mine what would you do? There is lots of different things you could do, but i as hell sure NOT let him do that. I would go over there and throw him out of my house. It would not be pretty, but i would not just let him in and claim my house.

Maybe i dont understand what your saying. This argument truly makes no sence. No person or persons is just going to say," Hey wanna come into our free land and claim it yours and change all the rules!" No. Anyone with half a brain knows that people throughout history have at least fought for there land.

[Cerebral Stasis 0]

Humanity cannot handle total control, nor total lack of control. Thus is why Anarchy, Communism, Dictatorships, etc. don't last long.

[Laos 0]

People,Anarchy is NOT a form of government, it is the total opposite, the absence of one. Thus will never work, ever!But even if we were in1. No Militarial or Police power, The constitution is just a piece of paper, it doesnt define rights, the police are powerless, and so is the military, they can only control people by brute force because there is no law or "legal"2. Trials and crime pointless. The Trials in court, and the crimes committed have no cost, except your own life, because the law can't arrest you without brute force, and will just keep you in prisonIn the end, its a Free-For-All, where the law can arrest anyone, and do anything they want with brute force, because, it isnt the law anymore! It isn't anything, its basically a giant national riotand even when an anarchy ends, tensions last years, somtimes decades before everything is good and fair once more