Is it possible to have total anarchy? What's the closest that we can get? How close have we gotten. This seems like a fun thing to discuss. Start it off.

1. Is it possible to have total anarchy?
2. What's the closest that we can get?
3. How close have we gotten?

Sure, since it certainly is something that is fun to examine.

> I don't think it's exactly possible to have "total anarchy." When we look at it, as humans, we want to control others (and sometimes having to resort to force). And as human beings, when people try to oppress us, we try to fight against these oppressing forces, in most cases banding together with fellow people. The concept is, there are only two sides to pick and go along with, in this case - To oppress others, or fight against the oppression. If you're going to help resist, or to help take control of others, you need to work together. By working together, anarchy is dissolved in these small groups.

Look at it this way - If someone were to agree with me, or part of what I say, at the least, it wouldn't exactly be an anarchy. In this case, either the statements that I make, or me in general, would be the authority that people who agree would recognize.

> Possibly the closest level of total anarchy we can get is when an extremely large amount of groups (I'm talking about MILLIONS of groups) that each have different viewpoints that may contradict one another's. Fortunately, well, thinking about that makes me think more about how completely impossible it is. :3

> We've gotten pretty damn close. To see it, you should look all around the world. In different countries, there are governmental issues (one part of the government doesn't recognize the authority of another side), which COULD have been caused by more local disputes. In those local disputes, some people who are on the same side in the debate might find that their side (either the radical/offensive or conservative/defensive, or however you want to look at it) is taking actions that are much too extreme. Other countries or other local groups might have their own opinions on it, creating a third or fourth point of view that goes against the initial two. This means that the neighboring groups or countries has nonrecognition of the authority that started the dispute in the first place.

Example - Poverty in third-world countries -> Lack of water -> Some people in that country find that the lack of water is creating detrimental effects and they should take action <---> Some people find that taking action is too radical, and they should leave it at that <---> Some find that to survive, they should take sources of water by force, which would create physical disputes among people -> Anarchies of many reasons and types begin -> Here in America, or wherever you're living, some people feel that they should be kind and help provide water sources for these countries, while some people think that we should be neutral and not do anything about it. Some people might think that instead of PROVIDING water sources, we should help improve access to their current supplies. -> Anarchy debating on whether we should help or not -> Some people might assume that it's not a good idea to meddle with a country at all, and let them do what they're doing, while others might have the point of view that the members of the population of that country might get hurt because of the current anarchy present in these areas -> Anarchy on whether or not it's the right thing to do (to take part in the dispute).

Simply put, we're ALREADY pretty damn close to total anarchy. If we were to create a tree diagram for each major dispute and branch it off to these minor disputes, it would be a very big and wide tree.

^ interesting

thats like a full essay =)

User has been infracted for this post~ Hyde

@Lastgod Wow! But think of it, when these groups come together, don't they kind of form a government/organize? I like making people think. .

Edit:

Also, Anarchy to the full degree would mean nothing would function. Why are there laws? Laws are there to keep order. Laws are rules(That the government tries to enforce, and usually does), and if people don't follow rules, nothing happens, they are at a stand still, until hell breaks loose. Think of it, Anarchy, no order, it's like the antonym to everything. If there was total anarchy, then schools, shops, households, factories, you name it, it wouldn't function. Everything can be broken down into steps, such as life cycles, human, star, galactic, you name it, once again.

And your tree,

this tree can be as wide as hell, but it's alive and growing, it's functioning, that's the key word. Total anarchy has not been achieved.

Trust me, I haven't elaborated on this topic quite yet. My post, to become a full essay, would have to have a length of 3000 words (which is currently not present there). I don't elaborate completely in discussions right off the bat. I want to see the point of view of my fellow peers before the argument begins (I AM the first person to give my point of view in this discussion).
-----

Exactly. That is what I mean when I say that it's not possible to have a total anarchy.

But even if these groups have a general purpose, these small branches may contradict with the larger branches of disputes. You can have a government in this sense, but it would be a corrupted one, where the government has nonrecognition in ITSELF.

Edit:

I know that the tree is growing and that Total Anarchy has not been achieved. That's why: A - I stated that total anarchy is just about impossible. The tree is basically a government, and to branch off from the trunk of the tree, you need to have been part of that government.
B - I said that we were damn close. I did NOT say that we have achieved total anarchy.

FYI, it's 3:09 A.M. right now. I'm about to fall asleep on my keyboard. I'll elaborate tomorrow. Good night, and someone continue this discu...............

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

There are not any instances that I know of, of total anarchy. However, many a time, such as during a revolution or civil wars, citizens will break away(like the French during the French Revolution ex: when they broke away from the Estates-General) or a small group of rebels will break away forming almost anarchy groups. Anarchy means literally without a ruler, so really anytime people break away from a ruler, they have a ruler or leader of some type of their own, whether it be themselves as a whole or a titular leader(a leader of some sort). So yeah.

Agreed, but even so, that would simply just result in polystatism.

@Lastgod Please do. I want to see your POV.

@Yahamai Don't states have governments? There we go.

@Compass Yes! There we go. That's how things function.

in an anarchy at some point someone is going to try to seize power, unless you are talking about some kind of organized anarchy, which isn't possible, since you would need a government body to run it. At this point anarchy just becomes law of the strongest and another dynasty takes over.

Yes! But the government isn't run by the common people, only affected, so to start again(Let's say the government becomes corrupt), this government might have to be abolished by rebels, who might be viewed as anarchists.