What do you think about anarchists?

[Tamoi]

It's got the record for most successful government system so far, given the hundreds of thousands of years that human societies were almost all anarchies up till the agricultural revolution.

And prayer is the most successful medicine system by far because it was around for hundreds of thousands of years....

Or, more realistically, 99% of humans to ever have lived have lived under some form of state. Every single achievent of society after agriculture has been under a state. States and agricultural revolution are linked because agriculture (the large population and the concept/management of permanent land ownership) can't exist without a state.

If your only yardstick of success is 'time from the big bang until now', as opposed to some measure of how well it actually works, you're going to get some really screwey results.

The point of societies is survival. They survived, thus they were successful.

Those 'acheivements' you mentioned are not important. Medicine is not important either, so I wouldn't say prayer is important, but you can only measure the success of something in relation to a goal. The goal of medicine is not forfilled by prayer. A society exists for the sake of its survival, and anarchism forfills it excellently. The goal of having a society is most certainly not 'acheivements'. Some people may have that value and live in a society, but that does not change what a society is for.

[Dumb Ideologies]

And prayer is the most successful medicine system by far because it was around for hundreds of thousands of years....

Or, more realistically, 99% of humans to ever have lived have lived under some form of state. Every single achievent of society after agriculture has been under a state. States and agricultural revolution are linked because agriculture (the large population and the concept/management of permanent land ownership) can't exist without a state.

If your only yardstick of success is 'time from the big bang until now', as opposed to some measure of how well it actually works, you're going to get some really screwey results.

The point of societies is survival. They survived, thus they were successful.

Those 'acheivements' you mentioned are not important. Medicine is not important either, so I wouldn't say prayer is important, but you can only measure the success of something in relation to a goal. The goal of medicine is not forfilled by prayer. A society exists for the sake of its survival, and anarchism forfills it excellently. The goal of having a society is most certainly not 'acheivements'. Some people may have that value and live in a society, but that does not change what a society is for.

The goal of society is to progressively improve the conditions of life for members of that society. States are rather good at that in comparison to the alternatives.

[The Emperor Fenix]

And prayer is the most successful medicine system by far because it was around for hundreds of thousands of years....

Or, more realistically, 99% of humans to ever have lived have lived under some form of state. Every single achievent of society after agriculture has been under a state. States and agricultural revolution are linked because agriculture (the large population and the concept/management of permanent land ownership) can't exist without a state.

If your only yardstick of success is 'time from the big bang until now', as opposed to some measure of how well it actually works, you're going to get some really screwey results.

The point of societies is survival. They survived, thus they were successful.

Those 'acheivements' you mentioned are not important. Medicine is not important either, so I wouldn't say prayer is important, but you can only measure the success of something in relation to a goal. The goal of medicine is not forfilled by prayer. A society exists for the sake of its survival, and anarchism forfills it excellently. The goal of having a society is most certainly not 'acheivements'. Some people may have that value and live in a society, but that does not change what a society is for.

Two things. I'm gonna go ahead an guarantee that humans didn't live in anarchy during band level society, much more likely gerontocracy or, well that's not the point. And I don't know that those 'societies' could be said to survive either. Given as how they were just small kin based groups (exogamous mating aside) I doubt hardly any of them survived any great amount of time without being dispersed by some factor or another.

Two, is it two, I don't know if that was just one point above. Anyway whatever. Two is survival really the 'goal' or society ? I'd say that's both a functional minimum and an impossible desire. All societies are acing survival right up until they're not and they're all dead. Nothing lasts forever, doesn't seem to me to be a great metric for measuring much of anything.

[Martean]

These guys ?

(Image)

No, these guys:

Oh, the CNT/FAI <3

[Frisbeeteria]

A sad joke!
If anarchy becomes a state of non-governance it will last only until someone eventually gains a hegemony on a (possibly multiple) necessary resource(s); as soon as that happens they have taken power!
Anarchy is simply a transitional state between governments!
Furthermore since a region in anarchy can by definition have no way of forming a cohesive military they will fall prey to the first "power" that seeks to annex them!

[OptimusOctopus]

I personally think their ideas are impractical. But they're a nice bunch I'm sure. Bless their hearts.

[Ny Nynorsk]

It's a naive pipedream of an ideology. Anarchism can work on the smallest of scales, nowhere else. It's not even desirable for me. I like living in a democratic(ish), stable(ish), society with free markets and a sturdy state. That being said, I have nothing personal against any anarchist I know. I judge by personality, not ideology.