Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Even if a national government disbanded, there would without a doubt still be recognition of authority on a local level, which contradicts the definition of anarchy.
There would, however, be a lack of recognition of authority on a national level.
Would there be anarchy on a national level but not a local level? Would there be anarchy on both levels? Would there be no anarchy at all because by definition it is impossible in society?
Furthermore, if a large-scale government collapsed, what word would best describe the type of society that would form if anarchy were theoretically impossible?
Offline
I think that most people would not want anarchy and would try and group small networks together and group them until there is a national connection; people don't want to fend for themselves, make their own food, get their own water and have a way to trade time and items using currency.
Complete anarchy will not last long, there will be national leaders shortly after.
There will be minimal anarchy locally, more so as a whole nation but will stabalise.
I don't know names of sociopolitical groups to answer the last question.
Thank you eleizibeth ^
I stack my signatures rather than delete them so I don't lose them
Offline
Even if this magically worked, and we turned off national government, someone else would come and conquer. Our nation defends us; no defense and someone else takes over. Indeed, even in isolation I believe we would revert to a system that certainly has local government. National as I see it as a United statesian wouldn't likely reform, (without the 'that's what we used to do' effect) were just that big
Offline
Donald Trump supporters will probably want anarchy.
I think it's human nature to seek social order. As such, people would gravitate towards local communities. In cities there'd be much more chaos, but in rural areas, towns would probably stick together.
Of course, things must be really bad for a well developed country to fall into complete disarray.
:.|:;
Offline
Donald Trump supporters will probably want anarchy.
No... they want Trump as a leader...
Thank you eleizibeth ^
I stack my signatures rather than delete them so I don't lose them
Offline
Kefka wrote:Donald Trump supporters will probably want anarchy.
No... they want Trump as a leader...
b-b-but muh meems... ;_;
"Sometimes failing a leap of faith is better than inching forward"
- ShinsukeIto
Offline
I think that if this did happen, eventually somebody will take charge at a larger level, because honestly, if there's no government, someone'll have to take control and I'd bet the people will support him/her. But until then, yeah, anarchy.
Pretend I didn't exist until now
All hail me, the king of insensitive jerks
Woot if you hate me
Offline
I always thought anarchy was about individuals living away from society with no regard for the law, rather than a whole nation lacking a government or authority figure.
thx for sig bobithan
Offline
^ If you have no regard for the law, isn't that the same effect as having no law?
Yeah, so doesn't that mean anarchy is possible for anarchists as individuals, but not society as a whole?
thx for sig bobithan
Offline
I disagree. Whether or not the person's frame of reference is the same between the two situations (no regard for law vs no law) does not affect whether or not a system is required/would return/etc.
I do agree, though, that only anarchists would have anarchy. If you don't want anarchy, you'd form a government.
tl;dr: No. The premise does not support the conclusion.
Offline
Pages: 1
[ Started around 1732737389.4533 - Generated in 0.111 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.55 MiB (Peak: 1.73 MiB) ]