NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, assume that the city of Los Angeles is under a state of anarchy. We all know the types of people that dwell in L.A. right? Middle-class citizens, gangs, low-income type, bums, and people who just want to live their lives to name a few.

If there are no laws, then there wouldn't be a law against creating law. Thus, those who have access to the most guns and those who specialize in team effort (kind of like Al-Qaeda) would have the most power.

These people, of course, being gang members.

Although one would assume there are two problems to this. 1. Gangs tend to typically destroy or hurt other gangs, so it would be tough for them to team up. 2. If the whole damn city organizes up and destroys the gang.

Okay, assume that the city of Los Angeles is under a state of anarchy. We all know the types of people that dwell in L.A. right? Middle-class citizens, gangs, low-income type, bums, and people who just want to live their lives to name a few.

If there are no laws, then there wouldn't be a law against creating law. Thus, those who have access to the most guns and those who specialize in team effort (kind of like Al-Qaeda) would have the most power.

These people, of course, being gang members.

Although one would assume there are two problems to this. 1. Gangs tend to typically destroy or hurt other gangs, so it would be tough for them to team up. 2. If the whole damn city organizes up and destroys the gang.

A stable anarchy within the world at large is impossible at this time. A serious worldwide shift in culture would have to occur before anarchy could exist for any length of time.

You forgot one thing: Anarchism would eliminate poverty since by definition, it has no social classes.

You forgot one thing: Anarchism would eliminate poverty since by definition, it has no social classes.
That's nice in theory, but I doubt it would pan out in practice. There simply aren't enough resources to go around for everyone to live happily.

Poverty doesn't exist, because technically, no-one has anything. Nice. I think breaking one's back is preferable to having some guy break one's face for a scrap of food. Unfortunately, any organisation is more efficient than none, so they have the advantage.

You forgot one thing: Anarchism would eliminate poverty since by definition, it has no social classes.
That still doesn't explain how it stops such a gang from taking power in a certain district or a street in a city.

Although i CAN be best friends with a bum...but I can already do that.

Humans are not capable of having anarchy. People will organise into gangs, the gangs will take control of certain areas and a feudal system will be placed.

Letila, in Anarchism there are still social classes, there is still poverty.

Thus, those who have access to the most guns and those who specialize in team effort (kind of like Al-Qaeda) would have the most power.

These people, of course, being gang members.

Although one would assume there are two problems to this. 1. Gangs tend to typically destroy or hurt other gangs, so it would be tough for them to team up. 2. If the whole damn city organizes up and destroys the gang.

point 2 is close to the answer. basically, if we have achieved anarchism then we have already beaten the biggest, most effective, and most powerful gang around - the state. in order to have done so we would have to be organized fairly well. and since the danger of some assholes trying to dominate the rest of us doesn't just go away when we beat the original set of dominators, we would almost certainly maintain some sort of mutual defence organizations to deal with just that sort of situation, among other things.

btw, anarchy means 'no rulers', not 'no rules'.

There simply aren't enough resources to go around for everyone to live happily.

therefore we should allow a tiny elite to take a mind-bogglingly disproportionate share of the resources away from the rest of us? if your use of resources requires the impoverishment of others, your use of resources is unjust.

but of course, there are plenty of resources to go around under an equitable distribution of them.

in Anarchism there are still social classes

no. the entire point of anarchism is to create a classless society.

I don't believe that you could have a 'stable' anarchy state as people do not share the same views, therefore people would act outside the rules or guidelines which are in place. Who sets these rules, who makes sure that they are followed? answer: no-one, anarchy is no goverment (no matter what form/name it takes) and a belief in individual freedom. No rulers mean no rules (for they would not be enforced), no rules mean no stability.

Anarchism, should it work would need to be constantly moving, evolving and it requires people to be good of heart (at least the vast majority ;) )