Anarchy

‘But other people won't abide by your rules,’ That's the point. Everyone makes their own rules, but no one else has to abide by them. If you think about it, people already make their own rules, we just don’t usually think of it that way. We usually call it a moral code. Most people do, unfortunately, have trouble with the idea of not assuming that everyone has the same moral code that they do. We assume that because we’ve deemed something against the rules for our self, that everyone else has reached the same conclusion, so we expect them to abide by it. The fact of the matter is, since everyone’s making their own rules, that one can only enforce one’s rules on oneself – unless, of course, one’s rules say otherwise. ‘So what if I want to be ruled over? Someone might.’ Once again, no one wants to be ruled for the sake of being ruled. It goes against out natural instinct. So the only reason someone might want to be ruled over is if they think that they’ll get something out of it. At that point, you could question whether that person is truly being ruled over, or if they’ve developed a mutually beneficial relationship with someone who has the desire to enforce their own rules on someone else. ‘Everyone should create rules?’ That is not what I said. I said that everyone should create their own rules. Everyone is free to create rules, but the rules only apply to the one who created them. ‘I thought anarchy was about liberation and freedom from oppression. How can that be when you are advocating rules?’ Is freedom not, essentially, freedom from having to follow anyone else's rules? Even the free follow their own rules. ‘If there are no rulers, how can a decision be made on anything? With millions of voices in the crowd no decisions can be made and no rules can be made,as everyone wants different things.’ and ‘Please tell me a system where everybody has a say in every decision (if they didn't there would be leaders making decisions, and you are against that), and it is still effective in getting stuff done.’ You’re still thinking in terms of government. What you seem to be implying here is a form of government where the people are the government – otherwise known as a democracy. In an anarchist society there are no collective decisions to be made, as that would be government. ‘The reason there are speeding laws is so that people don't die because of high speed lunatics.’ Perhaps people would need to be a bit more careful when it comes to vehicles. I, for one, believe that human beings are intelligent creatures, so we ought to be able to figure this out. In the case of those who can’t figure it out, well, that’s called natural selection. ‘I don't think it is too much for people to demand a certain level of pay, as otherwise the workers at the bottom of society would be starving.’ The people can demand to be paid whatever they want, as long as the government stays out of it. It comes down to the same thing as the speed limit. People are intelligent. We should be aware that most places that hire employees couldn't function without them. Therefore, if the wages are too low, and all the prospective employees turn down the job, the owner of the establishment will either raise wages or go out of business. ‘Many people in society would be helpless to a rape or robbery, such as the old of age, children, and people with disabilities.’ There will always be people who will step in to defend those who can’t defend themselves. It’s a side effect of humanity, and no one can completely stop it, even if for some reason they wanted to. ‘Weapons give power, and there you have a government, namely the people who have the weapons.’ If everyone has access to the weapons, that fixes the problem. That way anyone who wants a weapon can get one, but no one is forced to have one if they don't want one. The people would be the ‘military’ if you can really call it that. If anyone tried to invade the society (which is not technically a country, since the definition of country says that a country must have a government) and take over as leader, the people (who would have to want an anarchist society in order to establish one to begin with) would defend the society from the threatening party. ‘For security you also need some kind of prison and rules. Who is going to enforce those rules if not the government?’ As I said, there would be rules, just not the same rules for everyone. As for enforcing them, the people would enforce their own rules on themselves. I disagree with your statement about the necessity of prison. Prison would not be necessary if the people who would want to commit the acts which are now called ‘crimes’ were aware that their intended victim may very well be armed, and would probably not hesitate to cause them serious damage. ‘Again, you sound more and more like you are not advocating anarchy, but rather Marxist communism. Please explain how your views are different.’ The basic idea is similar, but the means to getting there are different. Marxist communism is supposed to use the government to establish a society in which the government is no longer necessary, then abolish the government, from what I understand. Anarchy is supposed to abolish the government so that a society without government can be established. Anarchy seems to be a more direct route, to me. ‘Otherwise nobody would decide on the same rules.’ That's exactly the point! Diversity is a wonderful thing. Think of how boring it would be if everyone was the same in everything. Why then should we all have to follow the same rules?