A country cannot be anarchist because rules will always be made.

October 26, 2016, 1:09 am

Agree13 Disagree8

62%
38%

The debate "A country cannot be anarchist because rules will always be made." was started by Tobibroek on October 26, 2016, 1:09 am. 13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

Tobibroek posted 1 argument, Yanksxx21 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Blue_ray posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments, neveralone posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

Tobibroek, Yanksxx21, jack_tim_45, CrazePhil, PsychDave, allyssa, Ematio and 6 visitors agree.
Blue_ray, TheExistentialist, naya23, neveralone, Thejw, monikofos and 2 visitors disagree.

TheExistentialist
replied to...

Absolutely; Anarchism is more of an ideal than it is a viable political structure. Strictly as a matter of definition though, the existence of rules does not preclude a community from being considered anarchist. It's the absence of coercive forces that define anarchism.

2 years, 7 months ago
PsychDave
replied to...

The problem there would be human nature. In small groups you could cooperate without coercion to adhere to the rules. On a national scale, there will always be those unwilling to follow the rules and who exploit others.

2 years, 7 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

Anarchism can have all the rules a community wants. Simply having rules doesn't make a society non-Anarchist. The key aspect of Anarchy is compliance without coercion. So as long as there is no coercion which obligates someone to follow the rules, it's still considered and Anarchist state.

2 years, 7 months ago

voluntary rules are still rules. anarchism and government are not definitionally exclusive. but they certainly don't fit well together.

2 years, 7 months ago

"belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." - Anarchism

"the governing body of a nation, state, or community." - Government

"conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).' - Govern

As you see by the definitions I provided, Anarchism does not work because rules have to be present, and as long as there is rules there will be some form of government.

2 years, 7 months ago

Their is rules as their is a rule of no rules.

2 years, 7 months ago
neveralone
replied to...

easy pickings.haha. but seriously that would make a power vacuum and we could possibly get another isis

2 years, 7 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

especially considering the rest of the world is not Anarchistic and thus has a military and economic tools to oppress less organized countries. If we're already taking advantage of 3rd world countries now, imagine what we'd do to an anarchist country with several "micro communities".....

2 years, 7 months ago

that's pretty much what I told him. that to expect that it could work on anything but I micro scale is rediculous.

2 years, 7 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

oh boy.....you might be able to make the case that some communities within an established country could function as anarcho-comunist entities, but to try and argue for an entire nation to operate that way seems ignorant of geo-politics and global economics.

2 years, 7 months ago

I've met anarchists. they very much think it is viable. I worked with an anarcho-comunist once. he thought it made total sense, for some reason.

2 years, 7 months ago
TheExistentialist
replied to...

I would hope that no one is actually arguing for viability.....

2 years, 7 months ago

and that is exactly why anarchism would never work.

2 years, 7 months ago

The existence of rules does not disqualify a country to be considered anarchist in nature. Anarchy is a political ideal which strives to eliminate a central government. It focuses on communities to rule themselves rather than being ruled by a central authority. In anarchism, participation in the civilization is optional, meaning that when you are engaging with a community, you are subject to their rules, but if you disengage from them, you're no longer subject to those rules.

Think of a small village, people decide that it would be best if everyone contributed 20% of their productive surplus (income, goods, services, etc...) to the community. If you participate, you can remain part of that community, however, if you choose not to, then you may be exiled from that community. There is no central authority compelling you to participate in the community, but rules still exist.

2 years, 7 months ago
Tobibroek
replied to...

Hmm, I'll take a look. Thanks.

2 years, 7 months ago

instead of knowing about north korea, do some research on Somalia. its an anarchist country(declared officially). there if you kill someone,there's no rule that you have to necessarily go to a jail.

2 years, 7 months ago
Discuss "A country cannot be anarchist because rules will always be made. " philosophy politics society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.