Thread: Is anarchy a good idea? How could it work?

Originally Posted by cmind

What does this have to do with anarchy? This is a very odd definition and I've never in my whole life heard an anarchist define it this way.

Here's the first listing from the O.E.D., in case Wikipedia fails to stand up to scrutiny:

1a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

1b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implications of disorder)

Not to question the authority of the anarchists you've heard speak, but I think these definitions might represent the understood condition of anarchy.

Also, to the OP, these definitions, along with my own understanding of anarchy, sort of imply that town meetings would not exist in an anarchist community. Every man really would be for himself, so no one would be willing to form groups, have meetings, or enforce the will of any majority on another individual. So I guess that might mean that true anarchy would not work, Somalia being an excellent example of what happens when it reigns.