Taming Anarchy

The literal translation of "anarchy" is "Without rulers". So why do so many equate anarchy to "without rules"?

Whatever happened to self government, and what exactly does your ruler do for you?

 

People are not responsible enough for self-government in a nation our size. All you end up with is a bunch of little dictators who think the world revolves around them only. Look how many folks got their rocks off resisting the mask wearing like they were starring in their own movie about resisting the tyranny of the government. These people didn't know masks were not effective any more than the folks pushing them knew they were, they resisted purely out of juvenile rebellion and because it made them feel powerful. The reality of the situation was, it was a small act that each person could do that may have helped those around them, but that was too much to ask for some. That was too much social responsibility. These people are not ready for self-government.

The problem with large government is that you get the same type of people into elected office. Trump and his army of MAGA clones, as well as the progressive brigade of fools, are great examples of this.

But for a society to function, there must be more order than chaos. So government is the preferable path, despite coming with it's own platter of problems.

 

Do you fear others or perhaps your own potential actions?

I mean, what do you need your government to do for you?

I would like as little government and as much Liberty as is possible.

Forget welfare for one, let The People keep their money to be charitable with. The government is not in a position to see who is needy and who is lazy.

 

My ruler takes the measure of things.

 

Without a ruler there are no rules. There are only agreements and contracts, and self help methods.

 

No, without a ruler there are no subjects.

The rules still exist, you will not kill, you will not steal, exc..They just wouldn't be enforced by a central authority.

What does a ruler really do for you that you cannot do without a ruler's help? Think about it. It's a short list, or at least it should be.

 

Who would they be enforced by then? Significantly, who would they be consistently enforced by?

The length of the list is irrelevant, it is the importance of those things that matter.

 

Individuals.

How "important"? What does government give you that you cannot do for yourselves?

When there's a hurricane, who is there first? The Red Cross or FEMA? And dang if the Cajun Navy don't beat both of those to the scene.

 

As I said, that won't be consistent. Some people believe stealing to feed your family means you need sympathy and support while others believe you need to have a hand amputated, and everything between. And of course, plenty of people would vary their opinion depending on the thief's race, religion, gender, etc. (consciously or not). If it's just down to individuals, how (and whether) any theoretical rules are applied could vary infinitely, meaning there would essentially be no rules.

Government is essentially a management role, boring but necessary. Pretty much anybody could do it, but as soon as they did, you have a government. There is no society in human history that hasn't had some form of government structure in place, if only informally. Without it, you don't really have a society at all.

Usually local emergency services, typically government regulated at least, if not government funded and managed.

 

You just going to pretend the police, paramedics, fire fighters, and the national guard don't exist? All of them are there, not only first, but often before the hurricane hits in the first place.

 

The Jews didn't have a government before Saul, IIRC. They had Moses but Moses was not a king. He brought the law but did not enforce it.

And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts the Cajun Navy gets there first. The difference is the difference between centralized planning and individual response. The principle is that the further away help comes from, the later, and more expensive it becomes. Locals are in a position to see exactly where help is needed and determine where it is not needed.

 

You think all those things exist because of government?

Try telling that to all the volunteer firefighters and EMTs that are working today. I can assure you there are many. Not enough maybe, not yet. But there could be.

 

Anarchy doesn’t really mean “no rules,” it’s just more like a Wild West enforcement of them.

 

I'd like to see the corrupt FBI tamed. I'm fine with rules and governance.

 

So how is your government preventing the "Wild West" exactly, and what precisely is wrong with the "Wild West"?

 

I'm fine with rules too.

I find government lacking.

 

Lawlessness is the issue. Imagine a bunch of riots and shootings every single moment of every single day in every single city and people are just chillin on their porches like “eh.”

 

We got that now.

I just can't believe that all that is stopping you(as in you) from killing and pillaging is government.

I really can't.

 

So, everyone gets to determine if another should be killed or not killed.
Cut someone off on the highway, bang, you should be shot on the spot. As an individual with that power will do.

Take someones lunch money, bang, shoot em dead for stealing. Anyone can shoot the lunch money thief.

 

Is that what you want, to kill everyone?

What are you nuts!?

 

Did I say I would shoot anyone?
NO!!!!

Are you nuts?

 

Yeah, but I'm perfectly sane right now.

I don't think you really relying on government as much as you might think you are.

Aren't people good people? That's what makes socialism work, am I right?

 

Not wanting blood on my hands and not being a sociopath is also stopping me from killing and pillaging.

 

But you don't trust your neighbor to do the same?

Even with cops, if the neighbor wants to kill you and burry you in his backyard no government is likely to stop them. All government can do for a murder victim is to add the deceased to the list.

 

Lol this is elementary school ****.