Tell me if I'm wrong if you know better:

First off: Anarchy doesn't mean that you get to just go out and kill people and do whatever the fuck you want. Anarchy literally means your freedom ends where mine begins, just like Democracy; only Anarchy has a much different political structure.
There are no set laws, but there are trials. So, if you kill someone you will probably find yourself in jail and might even find yourself with a worse sentence than if you were tried under a Democratic government, because Democrats are fucking pussies and so are Republicans.

Instead of being run by a three pronged government and state, there would be several "unions" so to speak that would run everything. So, basically it would ruin Bill Gates, but it would do the little guy a great deal of good. But, business would continue. Just not in mass production. Everything would go from being a few major corporations to millions of tiny corporations.

Because of this, there would probably still be taxes. But, not in the same form we have now. (I'm talking about the U.S) People would probably have to pay taxes to whatever unions they belonged to, and it would probably be damn near impossible to avoid being in a union. Considering they would run everything from your water and electricity to your clothesing and agriculture.

Also, there would still remain a form of currency. There is always a form of currency. Though, if there was no set form of currency (which means that we would use all different currency from all different countries) then we would just have a trade system. Primative and ineffective. A major con in the whole Anarchy ideal.

Plus, if you go to trial you are tried in front of your fellow citizens who punish you anyway they see fit for the crime that you have commited. You don't get to just run around scott free. Sure, drugs would be legals, nudity legal, those sorts of things. But, you go around raping babies and you're going to end up with a bullet in your brain by jury orders in no time.

I don't know where everyone is getting these ideas that Anarchy is just a free for all. There's no such thing in a human society. We're creatures of habit. We crave structure and rules. If we didn't, we wouldn't create them. Now, sure, you can go ahead and tear down all we've evolved to in the last million years, but it wont do you nor I any good.

Cheers,
Lost

That isn't anarchy.

And how can you try someone without them having broken laws? At best, you would end up with ex post facto laws. And your proposed system would handle mob rule worse than a democracy (Mobil Vulgus.) The vile proletariat would act on whims alone, ignoring sensibility.

Okay. I guess I was mistaken. I wonder where I got all that from, then.

Cheers,
Lost

anarchy means

ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT

anarchy is no laws, no leaders, no governments, unions! don't tell me, no that will not work so we should...

what you proprosed is an alterative government

I woudl say, a type Joint Communism

* no unions

Well lost has given her opinion, so why don't you boys give us yours instead of slating losts point of view and then let the jury rip your tongues through your throats.

How `bout feudalism?

Feudalism, haha, it'd never work I'm all for Socialism or Communism.

I agree with Lost.

If you live in a dictionary, anarchy means lack of government. If you live in a political, anthropological, sociological, or otherwise realistic school of thought, anarchy by definition is impossible.

Anarchy in and of itself can last only for an instant, because the instant one government falls another, (or many other) quickly replace it. Lost's example would be the second or third phase from that instant. The first would be family, and second (or third) would be village rule.

Humans, like stated above, crave order. But you* here have no great struggle to attain your* order, so you fight against it. Then you* could make your own order. Your* dream of anarchy exists only so that you can reform the world in your image. It's human. Family rule would emerge out of need - children need their parents. village rule would emerge out of need - An emergency kills a family, but perhaps not a village.
(*: You refers not to the reader necessarily, but the reader who fits the description of a pro-anarchist)

Soon the villages would be competing or joining together, one or the other. Retaining anarchial law (ie: Native Americans), groups would form and work would be distributed so that it would be most efficient.
-=-Unions (Tribes)-=-
-=-

Anarchy is basicaly volentary socialism.

It would work, be perfect, if only people would put others before themselves.

Lost, what you're reffering to is AnarchISM. AnarCHY is nothing more then an exuse to kick trashcans and break car windows.

You also seem to be forgetting the constant wars between tribes. And also the fact that they made no progress as a civilization.

I also propose Feudalism.

How would an anarchist propose depopulating the Earth in order to implement this idea of small tribal bands? I cant think of a cuddly way to eliminate 4 billion people to realize a misunderstood dream.

How does an anarchist propose keeping the ways of this noble savage, considering every tribe of people who ever lived in a state remotely similar to their claims of anarchy established order as soon as they were capable?

>>>Anarchy literally means your freedom ends where mine begins<<<<

What happens when a third guy comes along? How about a fifth? A three hundred and seventeenth?

What your referring to defiant, is the ideal of the older school of anarchists. The small farm, small community, no industry, in tune with nature, blah blah blah, blah blah, blah.

It just doesn't work when there are cities in the world.

Modern anarchism would be somethiing similar to whats happening in Argentina now.

At least in certain parts of the country, where workers have taken factories and sent representatives to the capitol.

And those representatives will henceforth and forever work solely for the good of their working kindred at home in the factories, for theyve been blessed with the holy spirit of Karl Mark, right? LoL

Right, and hands up if you want to be in Argentina right now?

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/anarchism/everything_anarchy.html

I wanna be a dictator

Anarchy is for faggots and lesbians. Who cares?

"Anarchy is for faggots and lesbians. Who cares?"
why are you still here?
better yet, why do you bother posting when you have no idea what its about or even care?

I believe you're talking about anarcho-syndicalism, lost. On the opposite end of the same spectrum we have anarcho-capitalism, where the big corporations would run everything.

RAOVQ

I think I covered what ANARCHY (lol) is all about in the other recent topics.

I could repost but it would be a waste of time since you silly ANARCHARISTS are not about reading what others write, instead, thinking about what you'll post next.

Anarchy is the true nature of all things.
Monarchy, Democracy, Communism, all useless forms to control the human mind, But the human mind cannot be controled, It cannot be restrained, It has no bounderies, it has its will. Anarchy is the true nature of all things.

-Alex Batting