Talk:Anarchy

see also

Mobocracy

Philosophical angle

This article doesn't really address the philosophical angle of anarchism at all. I'll have to add something about that when I feel motivated.--Bob^{bing up} 14:27, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Reality angle

This article is irational and based on faith in the present order, confirmation bias, as it were. 19:21, 26 November 2007 (EST)

As the author of this article, I object to the anonymous and badly-spelled slur on my good character. It is based on time-honored and repeated empirical observations of the nature of any anarchic system. Seriously, have you seen the mess in Somalia/Iraq/etc.? Researcher 22:41, 26 November 2007 (EST)

As an anarchist and a human fairly skilled at spelling, I must object to how your article repeatedly insults myself and those in whose footsteps I have chosen to follow. I don't have time to do a very detailed follow-up at the moment, but I assure you such as Emma Goldman probably had a better concept of reality than either you or I. Yes, anarchists are idealists who dare only dream of accomplishing all their goals, for the most part - but in many ways, we've come quite far, in the United States at least. Freedom of the individual is our goal. Is it incomprehensible that we might have a cooperative society which does not rob its members of their fundamental rights? Indeed, anarchy's ultimate goal may be utopian, but we can work to free the minds, needs, and conduct of individuals from government control in many more practical fashions. Anarchic systems of education have proven at least, if not more, effective than traditional schooling (Montessori method and "unschooling" being examples; see Francisco Ferrer). Please look into this further; I'll try and help...eventually. Assume a!=a 17:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)

As a political scientist, I stand by my observation about anarchic systems. There has yet to be any kind of anarchic system on a large scale that has worked. (Some small, Utopian communities where everyone is there by choice don't count as a "large scale.") Perhaps it is possible for humanity to change and for anarchism to be possible in the future--I expect that most people in the Middle Ages would have considered a system like the United States (with it's emphasis on impersonal law and rights) to be a dramatic failure as well. But, for now, all evidence points otherwise. (For the record, I am somewhat familiar with Goldman, as well as other anarchic variants. I'm not convinced.) Researcher 04:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Problem here is, you're not taking it from an objective view point. Ok. You're a political scientist. But so was Rothbard, Nozick, Von Mises (well, an economist, but pretty solid in politics), among hundreds of others. What of Francois Tremblay? What of Pierre Proudhon? What of Mikhail Bakunin? Are we to just reject the actual insights and arguments of Anarchism because you perceive it as utopian? Jesus Christ man, you called Marxists anarchist, when they're nothing even close! Marxists and Anarchists have a history for being at each others throats, and for good reason! To even act like you have some sort of authority to decide what is and isn't a tenet of anarchism is just sheer unacademic. AnarchoJesse

Another space I shall watch with some interest.--Bob^{bing up} 17:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Ireland??

How does the country that provides so many awesome legends about kings count as anarchy?? Researcher 01:31, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Check wikipedia:[1] says it was anarchist with source and [2] which says the kings you speak of were elected prior to feudal times:

In historical times, the offices of high and low kings in Ireland and Scotland were filled by election under the system of tanistry, which eventually came into conflict with the feudal principle of primogeniture where the succession goes to the first born son.

139.133.7.37 10:15, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Atheist A

do we have an example of this symbol we can add for compare-and-contrast? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 23:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, we do:

Ta da! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

And the "circle and point"? Which is even more like the Anarchy symbol. Gods, it took me three tries to write Symbol, which bodes well for my halloween partying. It's not even 6 o'clock yet. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 00:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

You mean this one? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Although, this:

is much more reminiscent of the violently-drawn anarchist "a in a circle" than the previous. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Having decided to read this article

from the beginning and I rapidlyI found myself stymied by this sentence.

"Amish populations of the Appalachians"

and have been trying to discover where these are? Please, someone, help me?? Carptrash 01:08, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

All I know is, the Appalachians are the mountains of the easternmost states of the United States. But other than that, I can't really narrow it down for you. I'm as bewildered as you are on this one. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Well there is a lot in this article that bewilders me too. Sometimes that is the point, you have to watch these anarchists carefully, but I don't think that is what is going on here. Seems more like . . . .. (can I say this, here?) . .... IGNORANCE. if we are lucky. Carptrash 01:35, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

You got me. I wrote the original article, but I didn't include that stuff. Researcher 02:46, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Well screw it. Let's chop it out. Carptrash 03:22, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

WTF?

Tuna, you are massively re-defining what the term anarchy means. Anarchy is simply the lack of government. As such, Somalia is a perfect example of anarchy. You may have a preference for a particular *type* of anarchy, which Somalia may not correspond to, but southern Somalia (the parts not including Somaliland and Puntland) have quite often been quite literally anarchy. Researcher 15:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think this article should be retitled "anarchism" as that's what it's largely about - the philosophy advocating that people should live without governments & that existing governments should be abolished. "Anarchy" is vaguer term, meaning, as Researcher says, simply the lack of government. This can occasionally mean the anarchist utopia, but is more often used to mean disasterous breakdowns of government like in Somalia, or just as a biword for chaos. If this is moved to anarchism & reworded slightly, we can then have an article here discussing the various meanings of anarchy. weaseLOId~ 15:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I originally made this article as a link from Somalia, and I want to keep it focused on what anarchy has been in practice. A separate article on anarchism makes sense, but there should also be an article on anarchy itself. Researcher 16:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Anarchism redirects to this. Either way, anarchy, that is, 'no rulers', would at least mean the absence of major hierarchies. The state, at least? Also, anarchism was discussed here. One does not have anarchy with archy. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 18:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think anarchism should be made a separate article, strongly linked from here. Unintentional anarchy is quite a distinct thing from intentional anarchy. weaseLOId~ 20:27, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree: Anarchy is simply the lack of government, whereas anarchism is something else entirely. Right, Noam? PFoster 21:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know who Noam is, but I'm on board.Researcher 02:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)