Thanks

Welcome!

Hi Dave.

People often misunderstand the word anarchy and use it in a context that implies chaos or mayhem. There is an implicit assumption that things would be in a state of disarray. The word (as usually intended by anarchists) actually only means 'without rulers' (not without rules) and it makes no implication about what consequences might prevail.

It's rather like the words 'atheist' and 'agnostic', both of which have their problems with semantic confusion, the prior sometimes being equated with nihilist and the latter being misunderstood as halfway between atheist and theist (or worse - halfway between atheist and Christian).

Just as we don't have to know god does not exist to be atheist, we neither have to know how to succeed and replace the existing ruling class tyranny to aspire to anarchism. This is why I specify "anarchist in principal if not practice" and simply tend towards anarchism while acting as far as practicable as a libertarian. I appreciate that to have no rulers necessitates that we replace them with something else, but I don't accept that this can't be done or that whatever it was would (or even could) be worse.

When (if?) we can agree that the system (not the existing government mind you - but the underlying system itself) we already have is more than imperfect but ultimately unsustainable; broken in such a way that social cohesion and order is inevitably at a fatal loss; when we can admit to that, then what consequences must ensue by tolerating the existing paradigm? That is what we should identify and associate with anarchy in the degraded sense of the word (a synonym for mayhem).

To get a clearer picture of anarchy Dave, I would recommend the book Everyday Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux:
[cdn.media.freedomainradio.com]

Skeptics,
Thanks for the response. Ok, I think I understand what you meant a little clearer. However, there is a flaw in your comparison between anarchism, as you describe it, and atheism/ agnosticism. For either of those, in most cases, it is simply not accepting a claim that is not supported, and often disproved, by evidence gathered, namely that a god or gods can be reasonably asserted to exist.
Anarchism and governmental systems, on the other hand, deal with how a community, city/ state/ country, is run.
With a god claim, there really is no real feasible plan one can apply to determine if there is a god, and how to acct accordingly.
But, it is perfectly possible to determine what would happen given the overthrowing of a government. In fact it has happened many times, countless, even.
Once a government or regime is overgrown by the rebels, there is, if Done without meticulous planning and preparation, a period of complete chaos and anarchy in their most literal meaning. Many people would simply attempt to return to their typical schedules, others would take the disruption as a chance to acct in any way they pleased, for good, or more likely, for bad (ex, looting, raping, the "strong" oppressing those they deem "weak" ), without fear of consequence.
Eventually, order is restored..... but typically not until some chain of leadership is established.

Be it presidents, kings, or council, there would always be a need for a leader, or select number of leaders. They make the rules, set policies, and determine how they are applied and enforced.

In a perfect world, these leaders would always strictly look out for the well being of all..... but the problem with any leadership position, is it offers immense power, or even the illusion of it. And, while there are those that are sincere in their intent to help everyone, the more "effective" leaders, meaning those that are willing to play dirty, are the ones that get the most powerful positions. And thus the government becomes corrupted.

This is almost garenteed to happen, eventually, with just about any established governmental system.

So the true issue is this.... in order to truly be effective at overthrowing an oppressive government, and establish a new one that is intended to consider the good of all, an enormous degree of organization, and planning, preparation, needs to first be established.

Ann's them of course that becomes a while new issue, as large groups of conspirators are more easily penetrated or discovered, the larger they are. And government officials rarely enjoy being overthrown, so historically, they are squashed, often with extreme prejudice, so as to make an example.....

So yes, I think anyone that wants to call themselves anarchists, really need to think things through. Consider what would need to be done, what the consequences would be, the obstacles, and the likelihood that their utopianesque dream government would last any length of time before becoming as corrupt, if not more so, as the one that was overthrown.

Unless you have a plausible solution, why obsess about a problem? Better to consider what can be done to fix what we have. That is something far more realistic.

That isn't to say I wouldn't love to wipe the slate clean, myself. Start fresh, like our founding fathers did. Get rid of the corrupt and pompous assess running the country, and appoint people that have been thoroughly vetted, not just with background checks, but psyche evaluations, etc... but.... I truly don't see how that would be possible without the issue of the revolution, and the following complexities that come with it......

Ok.... I've ranted enough, not even sure how much of that made sense, but meh. Interested in input though

Hi evidentialist.

Yeah. That's me Skepticus Maximus. You may have also known my father: Naughtius Maximus. LOL