Non-Government Economic System (Anarchy)

[larus]

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

[Dorodha]

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.

[AicecreaME]

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.

[fiulpro]

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.

[pokeronlinestatus]

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.

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.

[bitgolden]

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.

[wxa7115]

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.

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.

[Sirait]

~snip

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.

[Ucy]

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.

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.

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.

[zeingrind777]

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.