Expecting nobody to want to do better with their life, or simply want more power is one of it's short sighted problems

Hello

Hm, I can not change my name apparently...

The issue with anarchy is that it's not only prone to corruption, but it's hard to get out of

Unless you manage to develop a hierarchy within the anarchy that can survive long enough to become stable

It's not that hard. Just gather a group of people, arm them all, establish a base and say it's the central authority now, and kill everyone that dissents.

and likely to be filled with violence, because the government no longer manages the application of force. So you'd better be ready to protect your own from any violent thug that takes interest, especially when nobody is going to have any obligation to look out for you.

All it takes is a bunch of cracked skulls

That's incredibly hard to make a stable mock govt

and wouldn't forming that kind of group be antithetical to anarchy?

yeah, "violent thugs" describes many anarchists well, so...

it just creates the 'problem' they got themselves out of

I'd imagine that a "pure" or total anarchy (no hierarchy at all) would disappear pretty fast when people start to organize themselves to protect themselves and so on

well when you own nothing and you achieve nothing, you won't need a government to protect your property rights.

it might even end up worse than before because how do you hold a mock government to account when it's decided by who has the biggest stick makes the rules?

Reminds me of that video Sargon did titled "Antifa Battle Strategies".

But my understanding is that no-one really is advocating for that, at least the anarchists I've chatted with want a system that is based on smaller communities freely organizing in any manner they want and voting on everything

...which is still really unrealistic

Yeah, we've far advanced away from small tribes, how do they expect to survive if we suddenly isolate ourselves away from each other?

curious which one of those smaller communities will build dams and fund cancer research, etc.

or hell, provide food, water, energy etc

even manpower might become a more valuable resource

Not only that but small communities wouldn't really need to vote because you already know the people ~~or should~~

people's standards of living would certainly drop, if they're limited to what their particular tribe has available

no one will be able to specialise anymore because everyone will have to work the fields

To be fair, while I had some fun discussing things like anarchy in the past, I usually refuse to even debate anarchy these days. It's a waste of time.

so no more scientists, engineers, ...

Anarchy is universally bad.

then of course medical standards would drop because not everywhere can have well trained doctors, even if they do could they afford them etc?

Amen to that Ulon

And most sane people agree...

Anarchy is certainly a worthless proposition, but it's still entertaining to pick it apart

Garbage views are always fun to pick apart 'w'

I guess that they think that anarchy will just happen overnight, without any loss of infrastructure and workers will take over factories and hospitals autonomously and everything will be more or less as now, but free from oppression etc

It definitely is when there is someone with you who wants it 😄

But I did not have that opportunity in a very long time

same, haven't met an anarchist ever since I left high school

I put it down among all the other ideologies that only work when you are 15 and "seem cool"

shame these seem to be lasting with people well into adulthood nowadays

Some war would quickly fix that

hard times make strong men, ... and all that