Why do people think anarchy would lead to chaos ?

Why do people think anarchy would lead to chaos ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs
youtube.com/watch?v=QVeCNI3gLUY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

what else could it possibly lead to?

freedom!

Anarchy would lead to feudalism because a small band of armed organized people would be able to subjugate a large disorganized mass of people with ease.

because they are fucking synonyms

Because without formal institutions to protect people's assets everyone would just scavenge and kill eachother for a piece. There would be no art, music, culture or any businesses that are larger than a few family members because you'll never know when the local warlord is coming around the corner to smash you over the head and take everything.

Freedom is a good thing, but it's not the ultimate good. Peace and safety are more important.

Good post.
very astute

Sup Forums is a 18+ yr board

read some historybook you cuck. Every great civilization had some administrative inclination. The only ones that didnt was perhaps the mongols but they had the most alpha male in the world as their leader.

Because people are unethical animals that drop all pretense at being civilized the second rule of law and order is through out the window.

Look at worldwide incidents that follow a strike of a police force like the Murray-Hill riot and you will understand how a world without order would look like.

youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs

most accurate portrayal of the 15 minutes after anarchy takes over.

free movies.

>peace and safety are more important

anyone who sacrifices freedom in the name of these will get neither.

Fuck off democrat faggot.

Because the most vocal anarchists right now are ancaps, and it's retarded because private property is theft.

order and prosperity

you're even more retarded than anarcho communists

Kinda for the same reasons we aren't a democracy, but a representative republic.

Chaos breaks out whenever a status quo can't be maintained. If we were a democracy, the need to attend and vote constantly would lead to a very unproductive society. The idea of groups of people delegating that responsibility allows everyone else to focus on their shit. If there was no government system in place, society as a whole couldn't function in the sense that society produces goods. There is an expectation that people take for granted that a government offers protection for day to day things, like your house not being stolen for you simply leaving for the day.

Freedom is nice, but it's not a zero sum game. It's balanced against the functions of a society, saying your freedom ends where it violates at least this subset of the NAP as well as a few others.

Perfect? No. What is tho?

If there's no government, who is going to enforce the "no governments allowed" rule?

Nah, it would just lead to corporate dictatorship

the people?

This

OP, do me a favour and google search the words "police strike," then tell me you'd like to live in a world with that as the status quo.

No, if that was a threat I would ask an insurance company to defend me from that threat in exchange for a monthly fee.

It means without rulers, not without rules

There is a real world situation where assumed anarchy became a tightly controlled space for leftists.
That situation is Wikipedia. Back in the early years of Wikipedia there weren't admins, no one had control, only the editors had power, everyone was equal and the site was essentially in a state of anarchy.
Over time, some of the editors pushed for administrator powers due to a number of reasons, some legit others not. Eventually, the website was effectively under the control of a very small number of individuals with very powerful controls over the site and they made it into the leftist propaganda shithole that it is today.
Anarcho capitalism is a nice idea in theory but human nature won't allow it, we need other people to survive and stay sane, and in groups it's most efficient to have a leader, and in macro groups it's most efficient to have governments. Power, wealth and influence then all play at our sensibilities and corrupt us, pushing us to desire more and more of the same.
Anarcho capitalism can't work with humans because we aren't wired that way, in the same way communism can't work with humans because we aren't wired that way. True anarcho capitalism would require our species to be truly individualist, like big cats or something, fully self sufficient; similarly, the only real examples of communism working in the world is with termites, ants, bees, etc.

>only the state can provide protection from murderers and burglars

No. Wikipedia is in a state of anarchy because no one is forced to pay or participate. The ask for donations.
If you don't like how Wikipedia works you can start up a competitor.

Great assumption, too bad that's not an argument bro
Explain how that would happen, then we have can gave an argument

>It means without rulers, not without rules
And who's gonna make sure that I respect those rules?

Anarchy can't exist, momentally strong would bring order. Anarcho capitalist is used as a meme for a free unbound market, and a meme to kill commies

...

If you violate an individual's private property rights, you could be denied service and products. Making you unable to buy food, water and electricity. Shunned from society
Unless you pay back what you took or what ever it was you did.
Have you heard of Dispute Resolution Organizations?

You already do that, you pay taxes and state defends you.
On top of that state is outright dedicated to protecting your interests (at least in theory), and doesn't aim for profit.
You also get to influence state via elections.
>b-but there are flaws and problems in practice
Yeah and anarchy would work out exactly how you planned it out.

>was in a state of anarchy
Ftfy

You don't know what I'm talking about there obviously but Wikipedia was originally without administrators. Also, if you're going to post, can you actually respond to the entirety of our arguments instead of just one line platitudes? Because it seems like your just a shill intent on keeping this thread bumped and others slid.
Saging at this point btw.

youtube.com/watch?v=QVeCNI3gLUY

>No, if that was a threat I would ask an insurance company to defend me from that threat in exchange for a monthly fee.

That was basically the justification for feudalism user.

>he didn't google it
No, not the murderers and burgulars: the looters and rioters.
What the state provides is laws, backed by the threat of punishment, and these are incredibly effective at stopping barbarians before they even commit a crime.

...

The absence of a state can provide laws backed by the threat of punishment.

oh im laffin!

You are making the huge assumption that the greater part of a society under anarchy would remain focused, organized and moral thus they would have power over those few that revel in chaos and kill/steal/do what they want. Can you back up assumption? Because historical events where anarchy and lack of authority took place prove this assumption false.

because they live near blacks and rely on police to protect them so they assume no police=free reign for blackie

>peace and safety better than freedom
Benjamin Franklin would chew you out for that

The problem with that solution is that some people can endure being denied goods and services and others sit on goods and/or services which the rest of the community cannot manage without.

because your side lost the war?

>man robs someone
>lolbertarians deny him products
>man steals someone's products.
lol sweden.

not to mention that any true anarchy would just lead to mob rule and is just generally susceptible to being overtaken into not being anarchy anymore

Greek, remember that no ancap wants the state to suddenly disappear - if they do, they're retarded. States have monopolised many areas and so without the state certain things would not be immediately provided (developed courts, large scale policing and security, large scale roads, etc.). Most ancaps propose that the state be stripped to a bare minimum level (e.g. a classical liberal / minarchist state) and then alleviate itself from its status as a monopoly in all areas and subject itself to market competition, and then gradually be erased as the market becomes more efficient than it in every area. people could not just go and kill, steal, because private enforcement of property rights would exist prior the final removal of the state

i don't really understand ancap, since capitalism is pro large corporations. so you would be against the government and suck mcdonalds off?

Because violence is the only true currency.

Because people is naturally bad and selfish.

Let's hope the next man holds your same values or he can smash your head in with a brick while cheering about freedom.

Why are Ancaps dirty fucking retards

...

You right, maybe the people should talk about it and all the millions of them will unanimously agree, or should they delegate a few people from each side of th.... wait a min that sounds like the start of a Government, tricky bastards.

I'm forced to pay even if I'm not satisfied with the service. That's why I object to it. It's theft, it's immorality.
It's the difference between consentual sex and rape.
They don't care about me, the leaders are in it for their own power. The fact that they dot ask me if I want their shit is proof of this. They know their products and services suck so much they have to ram it down my throat.
>you can vote
I just want to keep everything of what I earn and not have anyone reach in my pockets and say "I know how to spend your money better than you". I don't care if a group of people vote. No one asked me personally, I didn't sign a contract.
If 5 guys vote to rape a girl, is it a morally right thing to do?

You assume that admins having power of a private website is a violation of property rights, it's not. The rest of what you're saying is based on that, it doesn't hold up.

And a stateless society provides order through social ostracism.

What examples in history are you talking about? I'm assuming most people are good and don't want to steal rape and murder, because it's more profitable not to. Especially in a stateless society where you wouldn't be able to buy anything if you were a murderer.

What do you mean? Like survivalist living innawoods?

In that case use self defence. Stop him from entering your property with force.

...

>since capitalism is pro large corporations

Wrong.
Corporations are government enforced entities.

>go to Sao Paulo, Brazil
>go to Cracolandia at night
>niggers and crackheads control entire neighborhoods
>police don't even bother and just back off
>no one stops at red lights
>if i were to get stabbed right here, no one would save me

Anarchy is a cool concept until you realize its FUCKING retarded. You need laws and rules and state to have some basic sense of order. Feeling vulnerable all the time isn't fun, even if you had a weapon.

>Why do people think anarchy would lead to chaos ?
Why are you posting on Sup Forums despite being underage?

Because 90% of people are retarded
And of course, enterprises will create a private army and competition will become just mob fight

>the state controls the economy through forcing people to use their currency
>taxation and regulations keep people from freely forming businesses
>people violating individual property rights

Not anarchy
It doesn't mean violence, chaos or disorder. It means without rulers.

this lmao

Accurate as fuck, mate

Chaos or not, anarchy was our natural state for most of our existence. No one truly enjoys being governed. The fact that we even need a word for freedom should tell you how cucked we are now.

Also consider that if you had lived your whole life in a kill-or-be-killed state you'd be just as acclimated to it as you are to your cushy, insulated police state now.

>National Socialist
>Anarcho Capitalist
pick one

you're omitting one crucial factor, firearms ownership
an average hue living there is unarmed and defenseless unlike criminal hues running the show

Wouldn't the model you are describing quickly devolve during the later stages into a form of totalitarian corporatism? Where large interest groups amass power, resources and wealth unopposed by a powerless government leading to the same monopolies (this time with no checks and balances) the former system had?

Also as a side note, from an outsiders perspective of the anarchy movement more so as it relates to Greek politics/social movements but across the globe as well, it seems to me that most anarchists call for the immediate deconstruction of state not a minority of them.
>What examples in history are you talking about?
I posted one of them here the Murray Hill riot in Quebec but such events are common whenever police strikes are announced both here in Greece (even if happens extremely rarely) and worldwide.

>I'm assuming most people are good and don't want to steal rape and murder,
Well here our assumptions differ and I think historical precedent is on my side. When societal structure brakes down due to factors like war, revolution, famine we see normal every day people acting like animals, violent and willing to kill to survive or exercise violence to achieve their goals. Those who act above their instinct to exercise power are in the minority not the majority.

When cops go on strike, there is no one else to pick up where they left off, because of the nature of the state.
If there were many alternatives, Private Property Protection company X, Y and Z, chaos wouldn't be a given if one of them goes on strike. The other companies could pick up the market share left off by the ones on strike.

Maybe I'm biased from living in Sweden, but you need to work with your neighbours in order to live. If there is no state, and I go and make enemies left right and center, I'm not going to make it very long.

>What do you mean? Like survivalist living innawoods?

I mean extremely wealthy and powerful people and organizations. They might own/controll land with valuable resources, they might have a local monopoly on a good or service through being the only people capable of performing vital services or producing vital goods. It's not like rich people are just gonna vanish because there is no state, they might not be as wealthy, but they'll still be wealthy enough to have leverage over others.

For example I might develop an extraordinary efficient method of producing steel of extremely high quality. and I might protect that method with great zeal. I can then sell that steel at a low price to people. When I then commit a crime, those peope who depend on my cheap steel will be forced by their own interest to protect me from the effects of for example a denial of goods and services because I might threaten to destroy the method that produces cheap and high quality steel..Other people might then deny those people goods and services as well , and in kind they might in kind deny those goods and services and things might escalate to a point at which people are effectively forced to resort to violence to avoid being denied vital goods and services.

It's hardly a perfect example but I think you can understand the dynamics of some people having more leverage. You might have some non-violent method of resolving disputes, but it can't function in all cases and you'll still end up with violence and war at some point.

I understand.
The company probably has shareholders, and the company has a binding contract to them which covers "don't steal" and also "don't knowingly run this company into the ground, or you have to pay us back". If the CEO of the company breaks that contract, the board of directors can elect a new CEO while the efficient framework of the company remains.

You realize they run on anarchy in star trek right?

Seems to work well for them.

Some guy is coming to rape ur wife. There's no cops in anarchy and the guy coming has guns. That's why anarchy doesn't work.

Without rulers there is chaos, violence and disorder. We fucking evolved from stupid monkeys (that anyway formed a small society with a "ruler" too) to fucking humans; created the world as we know it today with fucking countries governed by one or more rulers; lot of people died for their country and to give future generations a good place to live in WITH A FUCKING RULER but then some autist people start to say "muh the world would be better without government because humans are all good and respect each other". What the fuck is the problem with anarchist god dammit how can't they understand how stupid their ideology is

coz they break shit, spread hatespeech, chimp out until the riot police gets in. they think it is coz it actually is.

C'mon man, is this bait or did you not think this through?
I can own my own guns, and I can call the insurance company who I signed a contract with to help me in case something like that happens.
I can have intruder alarms around my property which automatically sends after someone to come to us with help.

>T. Dumbledore's army xDD

>Nigs not respecting property rights
Ok so use self defence and punch back if they break your shit. Call the private defence force if you need help, they are probably trained in riot control because that's what they're paid for.

>tfw your whole "ideology" was debunked by a UK NEET posting a fucking ball meme

Your ideology looks good on paper, but it has zero foundation in reality.

>He thinks insults are arguments and I will respond to that

Hobbes. I think it's bullshit, personally.

>it works in movies so it will work in real life too

God Americans are unbearably dumb

>Purchases land
>Encloses land with wall
>People inside can't make decisions without violating the NAP
what
Explain that please

Basic knowledge of history

Are you autistic

Wow look at this vague non argument
Give me some examples of this basic knowledge of history

Great argument bro

How about this: let's take turns listing historical anarchistic societies that were successful and long-lived. I'll start:
>...

I saw a few points you could respond too, coward.

let's change things up a bit.
twenty guys are coming to kill you, rape your wife, and sell your kids to pedophile human traffickers. yes, you have guns and insurance, but they have guns too. you get rekt and no one gives a shit because you actually live in somalia, insurance guys come to loot what's left of your property and clean your blood and entrails from the floor.

see how things play out when no one is in charge nor gives a shit? this is anarchy

President of the Federation

LMAO op imagine a classroom,ok now imagine kids in the classrom and a teacher.The teacher represents laws and goverment and the kids represent the people.Ok?Now if the teacher is good,she/he will let kids talk while doing stuff and learnig(that represents the form of state we have rn)If the teacher is really strict and you always have to write and learn without pauses that's bad(That represents bad dictatorships)And now what happens if the teacher gets of the classroom?Everyone goes mad,starts running,yelling and not doing stuff.That represents Anarchy and that is why anarchy is stupid

What checks and balances will be in place to keep said company from violeting your rights/their end of the deal? After all we are talking about power dynamics between an entity with little to no power (an individual) and an entity with much greater power who (like pointed out) can position themselves to be untouchable by the greater community.

Also take into account another scenario where Private Property Protection company X tries to take down via the use of force Private Property Protection company Y. What is stopping it from doing so? Absolutely nothing, which means that sooner or later such a system will inevitably devolve (or evolve) into having a central entity as a figure of power, be that an individual or a company which leads back to the point I made in my previous post replying to that Brit.

>Maybe I'm biased from living in Sweden, but you need to work with your neighbours in order to live
I agree but you fail to realize that the reason you can do that is because of the very thing you are trying to abolish (in it's current form at least) which is the social contract. There can be no social contract without assurances, without faith in the certainty of transactions and faith that those who do not abide by it will be punished. Under anarchy no rules are rigid and every social and interpersonal contract must be forged from nothing.

>he ignores everything someone says and concentrate on insults

Didn't expected anything better from an anarchist but i'll try to explain what i mean to you without the bad words that make jesus cry. If we evolved in history by creating societies with one or more rulers is because humans don't trust other humans. I know it's hard for you to believe this but HUMANS ARE ANIMALS AND THEY ACT LIKE ONE so there cannot be a society without someone to enforce rules and laws because as fast as those rules and laws are broken no one will give a shit because there is no government to assure your safety. If in an anarchist society I'm one of the richest guys and I break the law/rules what are the other gonna do about it? Cry? They will stop selling me things? How do you know they are gonna punish me for what i have done? I could be like "you aren't selling me this? Then i'll bomb the living shit out of you".
tldr: in anarchy only the strongest (richest) survives just like the world of animals works. That's why we need a government.
Also this and kinda this

Who are these 20 guys? Have they been terrorizing the area before?
If they have, then I'm assuming the hard working decent people around would pool their resources and try to get rid of these thugs.
If that didn't work I would move my ass out of there.

20 guys with guns could to that even if there was a state too.

Voluntary payment methods. If they repeatedly violate individuals property rights, their customers will stop giving them money and go to the competitor next door who doesn't violate individual property rights.

>take into account another scenario where Private Property Protection company X tries to take down via the use of force Private Property Protection company Y. What is stopping it from doing so?
Share holders, like today the company has a legal responsibility not to waste their money. Going to war with another company would be a waste of resources.

Who in their right mind would voluntarily give money to a rich terrorist? If I know that McDonalds bombs people, I'll stop going giving them money and so will a lot of other people. Bombs are expensive, training people to shoot bombs is expensive. If McDonalds wants to be in the war industry, the hamburger side of their business has to suffer either loss in quality or increase in prices, both of which will drive customers away and reduce McDonalds income and opportunity to bomb people to the point of bankrupcy.

so whats stopping the most powerful people from grouping together and creating something to rule over the land, a "government"

Have you ever played Rust?

/thread

You forgot the part where i said "if you don't sell me this i'll bomb you". I guess a good 90% of people would sell McDonalds all they need in exchange of their lives

Pretty self-explanatory.

What is the Lucifer Effect for 500?

Australia?

Anarchy leads a security dilemma, even if it's just an assumed dilemma which then leads to hierarchy and structure.


Anarchy cannot and does not (except for very fleeting moments) exist.

In business, there will be some more successful than the others.
What if Private Property Protection Company X (Which will be called PPPCX from now) is such a company and decides to take what it wants by force, the shareholder majority vote agreeing to a violent takeover.
They destroy company Y, employ all that can be bought and kill all that can't, then move on to Z.
Competitors in the market are crushed and assimilated with brute force.
Repeat until PPPCX becomes the strongest entity with a private army.
What then?

Below is speculation, ignore if you think it's slippery slope,
An insurrection will occur and people will fight back.
But the more organized, better armed, better funded PPPCX will come out top.
The people will be required to give tribute, or PPPCX will take what they want at gunpoint, murder, or severely injure loved ones.