Anarchy

'Think about the rules parents of an only child make up for their child to follow.' Yet that is different, as a rule is being imposed on somebody, namely the child. Again I ask you, if nobody has to follow anyone else's rules, then how are there rules? You say this: ' ...because my rule doesn"t affect them, but that"s not the same as having no rules, because my rule still applies to myself, and is therefore a rule.' You have stated that the definition of 'rule' is: '"One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere." This is obviously intended for more than one person. If I had a rule I wanted to follow, e.g. blue on Wednesdays, that shouldn't be regarded as a 'rule' when debating anarchy, as we are talking about rules in a societal sense, and not a personal sense. 'As for the groups, they would ideally be temporary, and they would be formed for a specific purpose, so they wouldn't really need to make group decisions.' You still haven't addressed my point about the effectiveness of an anarchist society vs the society we have now. You say above that groups would be temporary, yet there are a plethora of requirements for a society to have that would have to be permanently overseen and managed, for example food production, water supply, infrastructure, security, disease prevention. ' If someone is driving a car faster than they"re capable of safely driving it, they will most likely end up dead. Then they will be unable to breed. The rest of the population (those who have common sense) will stay away from the road until the situation sorts itself out.' In the example of a crime that needs rules so that people are safe, I used speeding off the top off my head. You seem to think that natural selection will weed out the criminals, but this is obviously untrue, as many crimes can come at no risk or danger to the criminal. If then, the criminal can come to no harm when performing certain crimes (you will most likely mention the victims being armed, I will address this next), then how can natural selection reduce the number of criminals? ' The majority of people here don"t carry a weapon, and those who do don"t necessarily know how to use it effectively. At that point they"d be better off unarmed, as their weapon could easily be used against them.' You seem to think that a gun is an incredibly complex machine to use. It's not, and i disagree with your statement that the people with guns are better off unarmed, because they honestly are not. If you were going to rob a house in America, you would almost certainly take a gun, so why would they use your gun against you? The robbers are bringing a gun anyway, so you might as well have one as well. You mention that they can just call the police, but a gun is used in those situations where if you wait for the police to arrive you would be dead by the time they get there. 'With no government regulations on businesses, people would be more likely to start their own businesses instead of working at an existing establishment. The only way that business owners could get employees would be to offer them higher wages.' So how would there be any employees? And in Victorian England, there were very little regulations on business, yet the horrific scenarios I have described above still occurred. 'Everyone would enforce their rules on their own self. There"s even a punishment for not following your own rules: guilt. I"ve never met someone who likes to feel guilty, but even if there is someone, there are probably people who enjoy the current system of punishment, so the rules would be just as effectively enforced as they are now.' So we come to the end of our debate, and my final point is one that is pivotal to the existence of anarchy itself. My question to you is WHY would people enforce rules on themselves? They wouldn't, and as you are all about unlimited freedom, neither would you. Why can't I wear blue on Wednesdays, why can't I drive my car as fast as I want, and why can't I rob that rich disabled persons house? In your society, I could. That would bring out the worst in human, the most disgusting and vile side of people. The only reason they would create rules for themselves is if they had morals. Morals would only be present in a society with rules, however, as these morals would be encouraged by the general populous to keep peace and security. The only reason you think it is wrong to rob the disabled is because you live in a society that says you can't. Humans are animals, and if anarchy was in place mankind would be no different than apes.