Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

Mance wrote

Yes, because if you look at the options: 1)Theocracy - I don't feel like be ruled by a central group of people trying to interpret the wishes of an allegedly super powerful being 2) Monarchy - Just because your mom or dad was a great rule, doesn't mean your not a twit. You don't give Wayne Gretzky's kids a big hockey contract because their dad was a superstar 3) Oligarchy - a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution - I think oligarchies can have some successes; I think you could argue that China is an oligarchy in practice. But I think over time the "small group of people" who rule would end up being "the people best at consolidating power" as opposed to "the best people at governing" 4) Democracy/Republic - I believe in the wisdom of the crowds. Since Democracy/Republic have the most people of all the options involved in decisions, I believe that over long periods of time it will be better, 5) Communism - good in theory, fails in practice. In theory "each according to their ability and need" sounds great. But to work, it requires a central body to re-distribute from those who can produce more to those who do less. And because "those who produce more" do not always want to have their surplus willingly taken away from them, the state ends up using force to do the re-distribution. All communist societies end up sliding toward dictatorships over time because of this. 6) Dictatorship - 1 guy ruling through muscle? Well, first time you get an idiot in that position the whole thing falls apart

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-1

Mance wrote

Anarchism only works for the young, fit and strong. That disabled 20 year old guy in a wheel chair that needs traffic lights to work and be obeyed, accessible buildings and such..........unless your under 25 and healthy I can't imagine who would truly pick anarchism. there are no hospitals in anarchist societies.

1

ziq wrote

there are no hospitals in anarchist societies

That's ludicrous. Anarchists actually take care of each other, unlike American liberalism where you don't even have free health care.

-4

Mance wrote

An anarchist does not have the ability to produce the sophisticated education, regulation, and taxation systems required to create a sophisticated health system. I care deeply for my neighbour: if he breaks his arm or develops lung cancer I can't help him.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-2

Mance wrote

Aye, I know what a book is. I read lots a stuff without a stranger telling me at what pace to read at. But even if I somehow manage to teach myself to be a medical professional just my reading books myself, it would be pretty useless, because without a hospital, all the sophisticated equipment, and the logistical supply chain required to keep a hospital constantly supplied. But hey, good luck in your anarchist utopia with self-taught health professionals.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-2

Mance wrote

The hospitals wouldn't disappear, at least not initially. They would decay over time and become gradually unusable, without planned maintenance, supply and upkeep. Nothing would prevent anarchists from keeping a hospital, but they (being anarchists, eschewing central planning and organizing) would do it in a random, haphazard way, which would be useless.

And it's not just hospitals. Any kind of infrastructure that requires foresight and planning would gradually fall apart under anarchists. Sewer systems, highways, the internet.....all would continue to work for awhile, then gradually fall apart. in 30 years we would be back to medieval times.

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Anarchism only works for the young, fit and strong.

and sex starved.