Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

Before I begin, I think it is important we understand what we are talking about when we use the term "good". Since this was not clarified by my opponent, let me take a moment to provide my own definitions.1. The state of being moral; a moral action.2. The state of being sound; a good argument.So the question then becomes, does Anarchism propose moral solutions to the problems it raises, are it's arguments sound? I feel, and it would seem by my opponent's arguments, that the answer to the first question is a resounding...eh. Anarchism it would seem is neither moral nor immoral in it's propositions, and it does not seem to be the concern of my opponent as to whether or not it is a morally acceptable system. Therefore this question does not seem relevant. My opponent is free to disagree, and raise argument against this, should he like to.Moving onto the more relevant question, of whether or not Anarchism is of sound reasoning. To understand this, we have to understand precisely what it is we are talking about when we discuss Anarchism. Contrary to popular usage, Anarchism, as a political ideology, is not synonymous with chaos. However, another popular misuse of the term Anarchism is to state it is opposed to forms of government. This is not the case, and is in fact an impossibility, as a man stranded alone on a island is still a part of a government; a government of himself. Rather, Anarchism is opposed to the usage of illegitimate authority, most commonly seen by what is popularly called the State. The State, Anarchism argues, is unnecessary at best, and at worst, harmful and immoral. In all cases Anarchism proposes that the authority the State holds over it citizens is an illegitimate authority, as citizens never provided consent to holding this power over them. Rather, they were born into the society they were born into, and forced to obey the whims of the State all their life. This, Anarchism argues, is an injustice. As noted American Anarchist Benjamin R. Tucker once wrote, "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external governments is tyranny."So the biggest question of this debate, aside from the resolution itself, is one of affirming or denying Anarchism's central argument. Is external authority and government an injustice? Can it be justified to hold authority over another human being without their consent? Until my opponent can show why it can be said to be so, it should be assumed that no, external authority is inherently illegitimate, as we all have a right to govern ourselves, as evidenced by the fact that we are all individual, sentient beings, fully capable of and desiring to govern ourselves.And this, ladies and gentlemen, is all that we really need consider when discussing whether or not Anarchism is a "good" philosophy, as everything beyond this is detail. There are various schools of anarchist thought that propose how we rid ourselves of illegitimate authority, and the best ways to structure society, but none of these schools deny the central premise of Anarchism, and therefore, their disagreements do not serve as evidence to oppose Anarchism. It is the equivalent of biologists and geneticists disagreeing on various theories about gravity, or evolution. The disagreement amongst details does not deny the central truth of the argument, whether it be the existence of gravity, or the legitimacy of authority.Onto my opponent's arguments."How do you propose to protect the majority of society from corrupt banks and corporations without government?"While this is not entirely relevant, there are several theories within Anarchism with how to deal with this kind of behavior. Some more individualistic Anarchists would argue this is not a problem, and that it is just the will of individuals at work. Other less radical Anarchists may argue for societies without wealth itself, or at least, some other form of economic system. Virtually all will say that human beings will work out amongst themselves the best solution.This issue here though is that this is not necessarily a relevant question. How we deal with this is not so important to the question "Is Anarchism Good", and would be more appropriate in a debate about specific schools of Anarchist thought. But we are not here to debate over what this schools says versus that; we are here to debate Anarchism as a whole philosophy, which means we are discussing it's central premise."The Bottom line with this point is anarchism has no clear specific plan as to where it's going to go and the lack of order due to conflicts of interest( I hope this didn't sound vague)"I understand what you are trying to say, but the problem is, again, we are not discussing various schools of Anarchist thought, but rather, the argument of whether or not Anarchism is right in it's proposition. Anarchism as a whole has no specific plan, because Anarchism in a broad sense is not interested in a "solution"; it's only interested in whether or not it's right in it's argument about authority and the State. All Anarchism in a broad sense has to say in regards to a solution is that people do not need external authority to tell them what is right and wrong, and that people, if left to their own devices, can solve problems out amongst themselves. If anything, the various schools of Anarchist thought are testament to this, as they are evidence of people, outside of authority, coming up with solutions to proposed problems.And while Anarchism in a broad sense does not have a defined solution, it's various schools of thought do. Individualist and Collectivist Anarchists, and all their sub-categories, have for the most part very specific ideas on human nature, and what a better society would look like and how it would function. Anarcho-communists, for instance, argue for an immediate abolishion of the State and all capitalist institutions, in favor of common ownership of property (though usually with a respect for individual property). Anarcho-communists would argue that raising people in such a society would prevent issues like the above mentioned Wall Street debacle from occurring, as no one would desire to engage in such selfish behavior. But that is neither here nor there in this debate. The point is, within each school of thought, there are well formed theories on what directions global society should take."The Third problem and the most common, Is anarchism technically being hypocritical? Even if anarchists were to overthrow the government and other corporate powers, Aren't they technically a government?"This goes back to one of the common mistakes I mentioned people make when discussing Anarchism, associating it with an opposition to government, when it is in actuality in opposition to illegitimate external authority, most commonly and obviously found in the State. This is not the same thing as being opposed to "government"."Finally, The fourth point I have which is connected to the 2nd point a bit but I fail to see how anarchism can stay in power. In the Paris Commune, the commune only lasted 2 months and that was with Marxists."I'm not exactly certain what point my opponent is trying to make here. If they are trying to claim Anarchism is wrong, because a well-known Anarchist society fell shortly after creation, I should like to remind everyone that the Paris Commune did not fail because of the philosophy which it held to, but rather, fell due to the outside force (the French State) it was fighting against. While it lasted however, the Paris Commune was a haven for working men and women alike. If anything, the Paris Commune in it's entirety, even it's fall, is testament to the truth of Anarchist philosophy; both in it's solutions, and in it's arguments about the illegitimacy and harmful nature of the external authority of the State.I leave you with this clip from the play "Marx in Soho", in which he discusses the very subject of the Paris Commune.http://www.youtube.com...