Another look at anarchy
Anarchy has a bad rap. When people hear the word they generally think of angry kids wearing black and burning cars. Or of people running wild in the streets, fighting and looting. But that isn’t anarchy, it is chaos. The difference is important.
Some people claim that anarchy would lead to chaos. Perhaps. That is a discussion worth having. But first people need to recognise that anarchy is not defined as chaos.
Anarchy is the radical extension of classical liberal thought. Liberals believe that people should generally be allowed to control their own lives, with limited government involvement. More radical libertarians believe the government should get out of everything, except police, courts and army. Anarchists simply take it one further and ask why the free market couldn’t supply security and arbitration services, so that the government could disappear entirely.
This is a reasonable question.
-
Recent Comments
Here on Discussion 
Jerry on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… 
Michael Sutcliffe on Discussion 
'Nuke' Gray on Discussion Annette on Discussion 
Semi Regular Liberta… on More guns, less crime 
Fermi on More guns, less crime 
Semi Regular Liberta… on Discussion 
Ben on Discussion 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on More guns, less crime 
papachango on Sean Penn Suggests Prison Time… Semi Regular Liberta… on Why I am opposed to an Austral… 
Victor on The British Libertarian P… 
Shem Bennett on Sean Penn Suggests Prison Time… Ben on Why I am opposed to an Austral…
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
