Welcome to Gaia! ::

oh but real anarchy HAS worked in small, so called "primitive" societies. as has socialism - far better than in larger, "developed" societies.

the way it works is this. the anarchist draws a distinction between government and society. the government is coercive, trying to force people to do what it wants and to refrain from doing what it doesnt want them doing. society, by contrast, is concerned with such things as ethics, infrastructure maintenance, education, etc. society can exert pressures to conform (indeed, we can not stop it from doing so) and so crime would still be prevented (after all, what stops you from committing a crime - the fact that it's against the law, the fact that it's unethical, or the fac that society will deem you a bad person and punish you? for most if not all people, #1 doesnt really affect their choice). and for those crimes that DO occur (as some crimes are inevitable) society is allowed to punish. because, frankly, you do not want a murderer in your society, so there does need to be some way to protect people's rights, and if someone's rights are violated there needs to be a way to punish that criminal. a person who violates another's rights loses his own.

the native american tribal system - or rather, some of the tribes - were a perfect example of this. in war time, there was an aggressive chief who could defend his people. but in peace time there was a peaceful chief who served less as an authority figure ordering people around, and more as a guiding force, to lead by example. leading by example is still in, just coercion is out under the anarchist system. society governs itself.

you could, of course, say that the chief is an authority, but one who follows the taoist principle of wu-wei: effortless action. rather than trying to make everyone live the way he thinks is best, he allows people to do their own thing (up to a point - still, people cannot violate others' rights) and leads by example. society is ordered and governs itself, without the need of laws which ban weapons that LOOK like automatic rifles but aren't (since automatic weapons were already illegal stressed ) or excessive taxation that only exceeds in angering people without actually solving the government's money problems. small societies can govern themselves, if given a chance.

of course primitivism is impractical, so in that sense anarchy may not work. but governments still have a lot to learn from the principle of wu-wei

there were tribes where the chief had a lot of control, but there have also been tribes where he was more of a spiritual, political, lifetime guide. he was a wiseman, someone people looked to for help and guidance in order to survive/live a better life, but he didn't need to coerce anyone - he led through wu-wei (though native americans never called it that). my whole thing is to not coerce people and try to force on them one way of doing things when many will work, which is what government does, and only leads to strife. you can still have leaders, i'm just looking for less coercion. keep in mind, i'm talking of anarchy and limited government from a taoist perspective where things like wisdom are viewed as legitimate authority, and not from your traditional wester anarchist perspective (where there is no legitimate authority).

if it seemed like i was trying to deny all authority, that is because it's very hard to explain eastern concepts in the context of a western system, even if you do remove all the negative connotations surround the term "anarchy"

ugh i'm bored with that one.

DEBATES THAT ARE OVERDONE:
gun control
abortion
stem cell research
gay marriage

regardless of where i stand on those subjects, im just tired of the constant arguing back and forth

Oh well, I already started a thread. I'm using gun control to get it started but dont worry, the debates will get much better as it goes along.

or locked.