Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
Here's a quote from a guy called Thomas Jefferson
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49."

Wouldn't it be best if we where to just govern our selfs as individuals?

The will or the individual or the will of the people?
The short answer is "no, it's not".
No it's really not.
anonymous, you might find it interesting to search on this site for "democracy". there are a number of questions about it...
most basic perhaps is this one
Mon-archy: One ruler
Olig-archy: Few Rulers (democracy)
An-archy: No rulers

Anarchy is the only moral, and most productive system for people to cooperate in which human beings can influence society and not be subject to the ruling of others; thats why the world has gone from Pharo's to King's to Kingdom's to Oligarchies, to Democrocies and eventually Anarchy.
this answer is one of the more obvious examples of why you're not going to get a lot of play here kk13.
anarchy/= moral.
there is no linear progression of humankind from less to more perfect (as you imply by your list from pharoahs -- watch those unnecessary apostrophes! -- to anarchy).
and whatchutalkinbout calling anarchy the "most productive"? (my question mark here is a rhetorical device, i believe you already attempted to explain how anarchy means better production, which explanation of course uses economic terminology and principles that i, for one, completely reject.)

but welcome to the conversation. may it be fruitful.

edited to correct my correction. (d'oh!)
I was implying no one is seriously considering those more heavily centralized authorities because the marketplace of ideas has rejected them as just forms of a society.  Anarchy makes sense as the final step in this process, because anyone who favors rulers in society will soon recognize the very people they want to rule against end up making the rules for those less politically connected.  I claim its most productive, as in Anarchy would meet the desires of society more effectively than a system of rulers.  I believe this because after 8,000 years of hierarchies, the U.S. had the smallest form of a state and developed the most wealthy/ productive nation the world ever saw in 130 years.  The problem was a centralized state existed and was recognized as the rule makers, making it into the Fascist state it is today.

Thank you for welcoming me, and wishing me a fruitful conversation.

1 Answer

–2 votes
Before anarchism stops having such a stigma to it's name, then a true democracy is the best of a bad situation. The issue with democracy (as mentioned above) is that 51% of the population can outvote 49%, 100% of the time. If you payed attention in history class, it is very similar to the Estates General. The Estates General was the system of voting in France, just before the French Revolution. Essentially, the clergy (1st estate) and the rich (2nd estate) could gang up on the poor (3rd estate). It was because of this that the 3rd estate revolted. Without estates (or what would now be called social classes, lower class, middle class, upper class, you get it) it would be more difficult for a system like that to occur, but still very much possible. I hope that answered your question, plus gave you a bit of a history lesson!
by (130 points)
this is not a good answer.
a. what does anarchism's stigma have to do with anything? (there's a stigma against capitalism, and one against communism, neither of those stigmas seem to be having a meaningful impact...)
b. why is democracy the best option after anarchy?
c. what does it mean to have a "best option" while we... what? wait for the better option to become available? does that mean that you think democracy is more likely to get us to anarchy? or isn't, but treats people well?
d. is majority rule really the only bad thing about democracy? aside from the french example, all you did was repeat what the question already said.