" Anarchy is a theory that would never work. Average people don’t have the means to manage everything they own by themselves, or protect themselves if some one stonger tries to take their property. And besides, most people would not even know where to begin if their whole system of living collapsed and they had to fend for themself. I guess that would leave only the elite who have combat training or the proper weapons, but who would want to live in a world such as that?
And besides, the people that survived would live a terrible life. Sure, they could survive for a few months or years, but eventually something would happen and they would not know how to deal with it because they have never been in a situation like that, or don’t have the proper training. No one can master every skill needed to survive in a world were you are your own support system and therefore their life would be a constant struggle to survive. No one can survive on their own, no animal in the world can survive by itself. You need to have a group of people together, with differen’t people managing different things: Government.
Also, this bullshit about how majority rules is idiotic. No matter what system you are ruled under(even if you are the system) not everyone will be fully happy. But at least with democracy the majority of the people are happy with the government in place. In a world where there are no set rules in place and there is no such thing as right or wrong(This is our world, by the way), and not everyone can be happy the only thing you can hope for is for the majority of the people to agree on something, and then go with that. No matter what form of rulership, no matter if it is democracy, a socialist government or a communist government there will always be a group of people that aren’t happy with the system. "
Do I need to? It is pathetic, and is not an argument against anarchism but against a figment of its adherent’s mind. As for the bit on majority rule, seems the individual is missing the point. Can I back out of an imposition of the majority in democracy? Can I just dissociate? No? Then it is inferior to anarchism.
This isn’t an argument against anarchy. It hinges on the idea that people stealing other people’s property is undesireable. It’s anargument against the state.
The rest is just projection and doesn’t merit a response.
Under a warfare-welfare state, only the “elite” have “combat training or the proper weapons”; a free market system is where everybody is capable of defending themselves.
You might mistakenly call it “government” but we call it division of labor. The division of labor is more efficient when nobody has a de jure monopoly in any industry, and where anybody can rise to the top with enough patience and skill–the free market.
Democratic governments only tend compel minorities to conform to majority opinion, whereas the beauty of free markets is they gives an incentive to accomodate a wide array of opinions and lifestyles–even though nobody is forced to accomodate anybody else if they really don’t want to. In addition, large democratic governments tend to concentrate political power at the top by diluting the power of each individual, whereas in free markets, small enterprises can compete with larger ones based on efficiency and merit.
Socrates encouraged limiting the population of every democractic city-state to 10,000 so as to not dilute the power of each individual. A free market society can have a population of far greater than 10,000 for greater division of labor, but still allow each individual to enjoy complete freedom.