Bitcoin Forum

Like liberalism, conservatism, or socialism, anarchism is a political ideology. The essence of the anarchist idea is that political authority and all its manifestations, especially in the form of the state, are evil and pointless. The core value of anarchism is therefore unlimited individual autonomy. Anarchists see that the abolition of the state is not the goal. Because it is argued that political power and wealth are inseparable, the structure of social and economic life also needs to be changed. The two great traditions of anarchism are collectivist and individualist.

Collectivist anarchists advocate an economy based on cooperation and collective ownership. Government interference in the economy for them is nothing but a system of class exploitation and making capitalism more attractive. Meanwhile, individualist anarchists favour markets and private property. For them, government interference disrupts the competitive market and creates an economy dominated by monopolies, both government and private. Anarchists of all traditions prefer an economy in which people are free to manage all sorts of affairs on their own without the need for rule or state ownership.

What do you think about the economic idea of anarchism?

How about rules/laws, is that compatible with the ideology? I have always seen anarchy as an ideology that hates rules, laws, orderliness (and government). I wonder what a community will be like without governance.
I don't really believe in any particular man-made ideology. I prefer something that is moral and works.

There is no such thing as anarchy economic system. Perhaps the closest thing is the laissez-faire or pure free-market system. However, in reality, it cannot be fully implemented, or no contemporary countries run on the laissez-faire system.

Like I said, pure free-market assumes every participant to be moral, but in reality, some participants can be immoral (cheating, colluding, scams, etc.); therefore, common rules are needed. Since there are rules, there must be a body that enforces the rules. The form of government doesn't have to be like what we think in this present era. If big players (market participants) agree to common rules and have a body to enforces the rules, it is a form of government.

This system view cannot be applied anymore at this time, where almost all countries have used liberalist and socialist systems.  How a country can apply the ideology of anarchism and run well.  The government as the party that makes policies for the benefit of society, its role cannot be eliminated just like that, even if it is almost impossible.

In fact that is one of the most fundamental reasons for governments to exist at all and it goes hand to hand with internal and external security, we cannot assume that people are going to behave on their own, if anything it is shown that when the laws are not applied people are going to take advantage of it, as such we need a body that creates common sense rules and then another one to enforce those rules, or put in another way we need a government.

The only issue is that as time passes governments have a tendency to become too big and put in place too many useless laws and enforce them as if they are the same as the common sense laws which is what allows ideas like the complete disappearance of the government to flourish, but if we are honest to ourselves we will find out we need governments but they need to be many times smaller than what they are right now.

I think that, in theory, it is very good, the problem is that when it comes to putting it into practice there would be too many people who are evil or who would like to take advantage of the fact that there is no government.

I am not in favor of communism either, but I think that in theory it is very good. In an ideal world it would work, but not in this one.

I think anarchism could work in this world but in small populations, though, as long as people there were honest and good people.

Their goal is to form a stateless society by abolishing government and law. The main theme of anarchism is opposition to the state and all government and legal institutions. However, the main criticism of this ideology, first, is in the absence of an ideology that is coherent and unified and is more of an intersection between two rival ideologies: liberalism and socialism.

If you say laissez-faire, it's almost similar but very different, man. The basis of individualist anarchism is the foremost and most important individual liberty. Individual freedom lies individual sovereignty: that absolute and unlimited authority rests with each person. Any form of limitation on individuals is therefore crime and absolute crime is if the obstacle is imposed by the state. Although these arguments are inspired by the liberal movement, there are important differences between liberalism and individualist anarchism.

First, liberals do not believe that individual liberty can be guaranteed in the absence of a state. Second, liberals believe that state power can be controlled by representative and constitutional institutions.

No country applies the ideology of anarchism, because anarchism is an ideology that opposes authority, power and the state. But Anarchism can be applied to communities and individuals.

I think true anarchy can only exist within human vs nature or human vs the weather/elements scenarios. Human settlements gravitate towards an abstract of structure and stability which may always prevent anarchy from becoming feasible. If governments are removed, then organized crime takes over. If organized crime can't fill the power vacuum then a system of city elders or community leaders establish some semblance of order. There's never a scenario where lawlessness and anarchy are preferable to some predictable format or structure for people.

It happens in the middle east where organized criminal groups like the taliban, ISIS and muslim brotherhood have risen up to fill power vacuums left behind by toppling governments. Mexico has seen drug cartels overtake regional and state bureaucracies. The pro anarchist slogan may be one where society reverts to pre agriculture society when governments are removed from power. But from history we can see this never happens.

Anachism is what you have talked about. It is anti governance.

From the search of the word anachy in google
It is
This system enjoys the abolition of government and it favours more the individual establishment and achievement. Therefore, the economic system that can be ascribed to it I think is a free market economy.

The point is every economics system is designed to enrich only small group of people. Why not everybody create their own economics that’s apart from the existing one, yeah every ponzi should fall when the system has no more youths to sustain it.

Government intervention will make capitalism more attractive, create an economy dominated by monopolies. Can you explain which of these statements are correct? Is government intervention attractive to capitalism? Or is the idea of capitalism against government interference?

The most anomalous theories say that the market is very free, but even this theory will not last, because the rich will have an opportunity to exploit the poor, especially as they have the means and time.

Economic theories do not appear to be dynamic and the theory that may seem idealistic in one country will not work in another.

Anarchism will not work, chaos will ensue if there is not leader or authoritative figure towering over the populace. Factions will be formed and a constant territorial dispute will be happening all over a country and it will promote right is might policy which is the same as any form of ideology. Honestly, I would rather have capitalism where there is a quasi-fair competition but a guaranteed security rather than anarchy where it is a free for all.

To get wealth, an entrepreneur must create a system so that money can enter their pockets. We take the example of a multi-level marketing system, the results obtained by members and their downlines are great from selling spectacular products, but actually it's just a marketing case and strategy that business owners have to bring income and wealth to them. If we are in the system but not control the system then money has not worked for us.

By maintaining the sustainability of a productive and innovative system, the system controller will get wealth. In a global scope, the controllers of the international economic system want to make their wealth lasting and increasing day by day so that they create banks, markets and fiat money to support an economic system that benefits a small group of people. So if you want to be rich then build your own system, with your own rules.

Create your own system? I think most youths want everything to fall from sky, they couldn’t create anything irl, they might be dominance in the virtual world eg tiktok, social media, crypto whale. Create own system isn’t easy (you need to design from scratch, need a lot of thinking!), destroying the existing one seem to be more attainable.

Anarchists love imagine how their perfect world would work, be it private companies competing for customers in all the fields currently occupied by government, or the citicizens doing it on their own, but the reality is, if you take away the state, you'll have a huge power vacuum, that will quickly get filled by violent people, like gangsters and warlords, and they will build a system much worse than a typical modern government. Until someone will actually implement anarchy on a large scale, and it will perform better than traditional society, anarchy will remain just a theory.

Anarchy isn't equal to chaos. Anarchists are against any form of governments, but they insist that people are able to self-organize. There are several anarchist economic theories like free-market economy or community-based economy. 

Is it makes sense?

In the simplest form, the state/government is just like, let's say BTT community, yet we have rules here and persons who enforce the rules.

In theory, yes, just like laissez-faire. However, each theory has fundamental assumptions, such as:
What if we don't? What if empirical evidence shows that every time it ends up as chaos?

I was thinking that part of what inspires the anarchists is what they were taught or believe about nature. More like "The birth of ordered nature/existence out of choas", or better still  "order out of Choas"... rather than relying/accepting that all the good things for development or creation need to be created/developed orderly (with rules, boundaries etc), intentionally, in harmony, intelligently, etc for good reasons, by purpose driven community or beings.
I doubt any society will survive by purely following the ideology. I believe they would only implement it selectively/selfishly to slow down the breakdown of the society or slow down their annihilation.

If a society adapts anarchism ideology, I suspect it will not become a livable place because it encouraged individuals to stand firm for what they desire and believe in. As what you have mentioned it highly promotes individualistic idea, thus it is not a healthy society to live in since it will not promote solidarity among the members of the society because it will become more diverse. Prioritizing self-interest can destroy one's nation, since there is no civil order and peace. We cannot trust each individual that they can behave themselves without imposing a law and punishment, for instance even if there is a law that you should not rob other people still will commit that kind of crime. Hence, government is still important for survival and security of a society, maybe we can wish that the government improves their policies in economic aspect.

People are not ethical enough to create this model. Cryptocurrencies and governments need to be in harmony. We need crypto regulation and vice versa. Cryptocurrencies make money flows more transparent.
Imagine there is no government governing cryptocurrencies. There will be division, structure to contend for power, money, and control over the rest.

Anarchism is even worse than communism. People need someone to control them, to set the rules. They cant even build small communities without leader and set of rules and you are talking about economic system

Most of the agencies are coordinated with most of the government agencies in that case economy recovery works both at the same time but in the case of crypto it is completely different it is not centralized in any aspect of public-private everyone invests independently. Both are double economies an economic system intervenes substantially to overcome the capitalist crisis of the state economy while maintaining capitalism. National intervention takes a variety of forms such as nationalization of public utilities, social security enrichment, strong implementation of monetary policy as a measure against business cycles. It is an influential economic system in today's capitalist industrialized countries.

Anarchy is politically ideal since it grants the people an absolute freedom from what they want to do.

Ideally speaking, it has a lot of benefits like people can govern themselves because there’s no authority to tell them how to live and behave otherwise. There’s a high level of freedom since there’s an absence of government and laws to abide with. People would be more free to do whatever they want without fear of going to jail. Less taxes since there’s no one that will mandate them to pay their monthly contribution and annual tax fees. However, these things have their consequences as well. People can be violent and greedy to the point they would harm others to get what they want. Because there are no laws and regulations to follow, chaos will definitely happen. Properties and assets of someone could be at stake too, since people can take what they want without the owner’s consensus and would receive no punishment because again, government is non-existent in anarchism. Tax-funded projects like public health, infrastructures, education, and the likes will certainly suffer because there’s no enough fund to use.

Another thing, anarchism can lead to depreciation of value of the local currency because investors and businessmen will lose their trust to that specific currency. The investors would fear their businesses will be at losing edge since there’s none governing the place. This results to lesser and lesser investment that could soon lead to high unemployment rate. High unemployment rate + expensive goods = poverty.

Basically, anarchism will be survival of the fittest especially if the people residing in that certain place are just prioritizing their self-interest over the good of the majority. It may be suitable for small area wherein people are familiar with each other and are willing to do good for each other’s benefit. Government may not meet our expectations most often, but it certainly isn’t that bad.

I’d like to leave a quotation by someone. It says that, “Too much freedom is dangerous to those who cannot cope with the responsibilities that accompany independence.” This summarizes the whole point why anarchism is not sustainable in the long run. Unfortunately, not everyone is disciplined and responsible enough to handle well the  repercussions of their actions.

If we give power to one person, it is for sure going to be biased and at the same time it can create further complications in the system itself but no one to question. Even though this plan might sound very interesting but it's irrelevancy lies in the practical application.
We cannot just give people absolute freedom, there might be a percentage of them willing to use underhanded methods to manipulate the market.
I don't want to sound negative but most percentage of people look for just profits, which inturn might cause various problems in the long run, we need a system where it's open! All transactions are visible! They can be tracked by anyone! Like cryptocurrencies, blockchain being used in the market.
This way there won't be any corruption!!
We have to yet find a better governance system, not anarchy, nor governmental system can be 100% effective.

I was going to ask that question too, rules/laws are very important and from the way I understand anarchy it should be a world where people are free to do whatever they want to do without government interference and the way I see it, that’s going to be very bad.

The idea of people having freedom might seem really good, but that’s only when everyone is only out to do something good, which we know is not very possible in this world. So, this whole idea of anarchy is not for me, I am not in support of a world where people will act however they want.

Anarchism is not something that we could control and that means it would be a bit more anyone's game type of situation which is why I do not think it could work. Do not get me wrong I am all for less government and I would be fine with that, however at the same time when you have no government there is a big difference between that and less government.

There needs to be some laws against bad people otherwise how could we stop people from rioting if we go full anarchy, that would be basically the regular normal behavior and it would cause looting and it would cause people who work regularly to not have anything at all.

I would say go left as much as you can and stop when the idea you have starts to intervene with other peoples freedom as well at that point you are basically committing a crime.

And that is exactly the problem, there are certain preconditions for something to work at all that are not present among every single person and as such if we tried to apply that system to everyone no matter the circumstances that is when we see that is not really applicable at all.

You bring the example of communism and that is a great one, in theory communism works and I have no doubt that in very small populations in which everyone knows everyone and they hold themselves accountable it could work, as lazy people are expelled if they do not change their ways, but those that believe in communism believe they can apply their ideology to whole countries and as we have seen it has never work despite their promises they will get it right this time.

That's right, without the rules people become disoriented and do things only according to their wish. and honestly, it is very dangerous to the social life of the people.

Blockchain is a perfect technology, it's like being an impartial watchdog, very transparent and can't be manipulated by anyone's wishes.

A humane and sensible ideology would be:  "freedom to do what is good/right/moral." Do everything in love for GOD and people. Don't move outside of the boundary of Love or you get punished.

GOD created everything... If you love HIM well enough, you wouldn't abuse HIS creations or displease HIM. You basically find what pleases HIM and do them always. You can only do what pleases HIM always if you have HIS Spirit in you. So, people with HIS Spirit in them can live without human laws/rules and still do things right/morally always.

Of all the arguments you say about anarchists like the social contract theory justified by the country. social contract theory is based on contributions from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. According to both, a society without a state will produce civil war, everyone against everyone, making an orderly and stable life impossible. The source of this bitter conflict is human nature which, according to Hobbes and Locke, is selfish, greedy and can be aggressive. Order can only exist in the presence of law and a sovereign state can guarantee social order by curbing these human nature impulses.

But for anarchists, such a basic idea of ​​a human being is not true. For an anarchist, human beings are by nature rational beings, attracted to education and with enlightened judgment will live according to truth and universal moral laws. From here then anarchism builds a critique of prevailing mainstream thinking by constructing an ideal or perfect alternative image (this is the utopian approach) in the form of a belief in the potential and natural nature of humans which tend to be good.