Anarchy

‘…if nobody has to follow anyone else's rules, then how are there rules?’ and ‘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.’ Intended or not, if the definition can be applied correctly to the thing that I wish to call a rule, it is technically a rule. ‘One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.’ Any rule that I wish to impose on myself is one of a set of principles (namely the set of all the rules I wish to impose on myself, which are otherwise known as ‘morals’ or ‘principles’) governing conduct (it tells me what I can or cannot do) within a particular sphere (a sphere that happens to only include one person: myself). So then, there are rules by the definition of ‘rule’ even if nobody has to follow anyone else’s rules. ‘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.’ There would be no ‘rules in a societal sense’. If everyone can make up their own rules, as is stated in our agreed upon definition of anarchy, there can be no societal rules, as everyone's rules would contradict one another. Thus, the only rules that would exist to be talked about in relation to anarchy are personal rules. ‘You still haven't addressed my point about the effectiveness of an anarchist society vs the society we have now.’ Think about the things that are accomplished under the current system. They can be classified in one of two groups: things that the government accomplishes, and things that various people or groups of people accomplish. The things that the government accomplishes are things that tell the people what they can and can’t do and things that further the power of the government. Anarchy is against those things. The things that people accomplish, are everything that makes society effective to begin with. The two reasons people or groups of people fail to accomplish things are lack of motivation and other people's interference, the government being the number one interferer. It follows that without the government people would accomplish more, and therefore be more effective. Your examples of things that society needs management for were ‘food production, water supply, infrastructure, security, disease prevention’. Food production and water supply could be managed by each individual in that industry, as opposed to groups, infrastructure and disease prevention could be managed by having a group for each specific project, and we have already discussed security. Any other examples could be dealt with similarly. ‘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?’ Those who perform ‘wrong’ acts would likely be ostracized by society, if the majority of society does, indeed, perceive their actions as ‘wrong’. They would then only be able to reproduce with other ostracized individuals, as everyone else would consider it undesirable, at least, to reproduce with them. This would separate humanity into two groups, and the society of the ostracized would most likely collapse due to dysfunctionality. If, on the other hand, society continues to allow people who commit the acts currently called ‘crimes’ to reproduce with the general populace, they must not be so appalled at the acts as they claim. ‘You seem to think that a gun is an incredibly complex machine to use.’ I know very well how easy it is to use a gun. I own a gun, and I have had reason to use it. I said that most people can’t use a gun effectively. For one thing, most people can’t hit their target, and while it makes for a highly amusing spectacle, it doesn't get them out of whatever trouble they’re in. There's also this idea in some people’s minds that they're incapable of shooting another person. They're not physically incapable, but they’ve rendered themselves mentally incapable. Where I live (meaning this particular area of the city), most people refer to that type of person as an easy target. Those of us who don’t, refer to them as stupid. I don’t see any particular reason that I should hurt them, as they do make fairly good distractions for those who are looking to hurt someone, but I take no issue with someone else who hurts them. Humanity could do with a lot less stupidity anyway. ‘So how would there be any employees?’ There would be employees because a lot of people would rather avoid the hassle of managing their own business. As long as employers offer wages high enough to support their employees, people will take a job that pays a little less than their own business would in order to avoid spending time managing a business. ‘…in Victorian England, there were very little regulations on business, yet the horrific scenarios I have described above still occurred.’ I’d say the blame for that rests on the people who allowed themselves to be taken advantage of in that way. Anarchy is built on the ideal of freedom, so the people in an anarchist society wouldn't stand for that kind of oppression any more than they would stand for governmental oppression. ‘My question to you is WHY would people enforce rules on themselves?’ They would enforce rules on themselves because they can’t help it. Morality simply cannot be completely destroyed. I’ve tried it, and it doesn't work. Even if one manages to destroy the moral objection to shooting someone in the head using the justification that they said something one didn't like, then one is faced with rationality, which says that it doesn't make sense to shoot someone in the head for a reason like that. If you look closely, that’s really just another layer of morality hiding behind rational thought. ‘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?’ There’s no real reason you can’t, but there are some things you shouldn't do if you don’t want to die, such as driving your car as fast as you want or setting off bombs in your back yard. ‘That would bring out the worst in human, the most disgusting and vile side of people.’ and ‘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.’ If everyone is following their own rules, they wouldn’t be the worst, but rather the best. Right and wrong are subjective, so the fairest way to deal with them is to allow everyone to define them however they like. It’s better to limit society's influence over morals as much as possible and allow individuals to decide what morality is for themselves. ‘The only reason you think it is wrong to rob the disabled is because you live in a society that says you can't.’ There's a flaw in that statement: I don't think it's wrong to rob the disabled. The reasons I don't rob people are as follows: a) I’m pretty much content, as far as things go b) I’d rather not go to jail c) I just can't be bothered with planning a robbery, since I have better things to do with my time. ‘Humans are animals, and if anarchy was in place mankind would be no different than apes.’ The only huge difference between humans and apes now is that of intelligence. Apes do, in fact, have some form of ‘government’ for their ‘society’. It is only so because apes lack higher thinking capabilities. They're ruled by instinct only, so a ruling figure has no real function as far as prohibiting the group’s freedom, since apes don’t comprehend morality. Humans do possess higher thinking capabilities, and are therefore capable of weighing their own decisions against their perception of morality, with no help from a government.