Anarchy

‘Please explain to me how that works, give me an example, anything, because it doesn't make sense.’ To keep things simple, I’ll try to explain using your example. You have your rule that says you can’t steal things, but you’ve just been robbed by someone who has a rule that says they can steal things. You should realize, then, that they don’t follow the same rules as you when it comes to stealing. They don’t have to. If you choose to beat them up because they broke your rule, that implies that you have another rule that says you can enforce your rules on other people. You’re correct that you would not be honoring their rule by doing so, but you don't have to honor their rule, just as they don't have to honor your rule that says you can beat them up because they stole from you. In fact, the majority of people would not honor your rule about enforcing your rules, because they wouldn't want to stand still and let you beat them up. ‘…if you can only make rules for yourself, how are there any rules? if nobody has to follow your rules, that's just the same as having no rules.’ and ‘WELL HOW ARE THEY RULES THEN IF THEY ONLY APPLY TO YOURSELF?’ The definition of ‘rule’ is ‘One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.’ Rules, therefore, do not have to apply to more than one person. As a matter of fact, there are lots of rules that apply to exactly one person. Think about the rules parents of an only child make up for their child to follow. There’s only one person who has to follow those rules. For a (rather ridiculous) example of how things would work in an anarchist society, imagine I make a rule for myself saying that I can’t wear blue on Wednesdays. To make things even more interesting, imagine that I make having to clean the attic the consequence for not following that rule. Now I’ll probably try to follow my rule, because if I selected cleaning the attic as a punishment, I probably don’t find it pleasant. Everyone else can wear blue on Wednesday if they like, 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. ‘I would say having sex with a corpse goes against our natural instinct as well. You seem to disregard people's views just because you don't like them.’ Maybe I should expand my statement, then. No one does anything just for the sake of doing it. There is a motive behind every action. That motive may vary, but it will always be present. Most, if not all, motives are completely self-centered, even if the corresponding action doesn't seem to be. You said it yourself: ‘People are selfish.’ I have a motive for wanting to have sex with a corpse (namely, pleasure, the same reason anyone wants to have sex with anyone or anything, aside from reproduction), and those who want to be ruled have motives for wanting to be ruled (though I can’t say what those motives are, since I don't inhabit their brains). (And just for the record, I find it perfectly natural to have sex with a corpse). ‘If there are no collective decisions to be made then how would the anarchist society be anywhere near as effective as what we have now?’ When I said collective decisions, I meant decisions that affect the whole of society. 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. ‘What do you mean natural selection? If someone is speeding and kills me with their car, because there are no rules, that doesn't mean he is unable to breed. Please expand on this point.’ 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. ‘That doesn't work if it's the only job available to you, and you can't turn down the job if you are starving and NEED money.’ But you said earlier ‘factories were basically sweatshops with bosses earning huge slices of the revenue while employees starved to death because they were so poor.’ So it looks like it wouldn't matter if they turned down the job. Still, I predict that wages would go up in an anarchist society. 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. ‘If people would always step in to help people who needed help, why is there a police force?’ To enforce the rules that the government makes. I’m not saying that the people on the police force are bad, because many of them are probably the same people who would defend those who can’t defend themselves. Why else would they join the police force to begin with? I don’t think it’s the exceptional pay, or the outstanding respect from the general public, so they must have some other motivation. ‘…in the US robberies happen all the time, and people are armed.’ Sure they’re armed. With a phone, on which to call the police. 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. If it was essential for people to know how to defend themselves, they would either learn or die. It’s another instance of natural selection. ‘How could rules effectively be enforced if everyone made their own rules up. Answer me that question.’ 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.