Currently most countries have democracy as their state model. if it were up to them, would they change it? let's look at some of the 'latest crazes?' Anarchism is where there is no state and everything comes down to the individual. this means, the corporations run the world. if it were up to the corporations, everyone will be second to the business, and that means less jobs - with no regulation, no services for those that cannot afford, and no real justice when it comes to what the businesses allow in their 'city.' Socialism is where a lot of it is regulated. as being the opposite of anarchism, isn't this the best option?
No, that's not what Anarchism is. Corporations would not rule, because it would be the people running them. Think of Anarchism as socialism but on the social contract.
the people that rule the corporations will rule, won't they? they will decide. there will be no rights, as there is no state legislature. this means, there will be a need for a state system, and, there will become one, so, you will never get pure anarchism.
You're referring to libertarianism. Anarchism, that would never happen because everything would be own by the people. There are plenty of rights in an Anarchism because it's the innate right of the people.
Well, I need to know how much you know. Tell me what you know about the political and social contracts.
Probably. - - - Updated - - - Oh, i am just a layman. if you could go over what the differences are between rights, service delivery and economics, that would be good.
Corporations are creations of the state. Pretty much all the bad stuff people attribute to corporations results from state collusion. Anarchism as I see it isn't a political theory, it's an ethical theory. It's the rejection of the state's claim that its law is worth obeying as a matter of principle. If you accept this claim, you're an Anarchist. Similarly, I don't see socialism and the such as "political theories", because there's no such thing as the collective. All you can do is decide your own individual action. Consequently, statist political theories aren't so much based on the notion that good things should happen (whatever those good things are; healthcare, law enforcement, etc) - but that caging people for an action is justified. Think for yourself and anarchism is the logical result. Maybe not as a political theory, but as a way of life. That's true liberty, man
I'm not much of an economics person but I can explain what rights are. Rights and liberties are different. Rights are something you have, that you don't need a government or anybody around to assure.
Then how do you know you will have rights? if you were to look to the dark ages, did people have rights then? there needs to be law i figure. - - - Updated - - - Could you maybe tell me about the rights, service delivery and economics of a anarchist state?
The reason they didn't have rights back then, was because the notion didn't exist. They came about when John Locke published his Two Treaties, and then the Philosphes that followed him.
There's no such thing as an "anarchist state" as anarchy means "no rulers" so there would be no state. The rights are those that are simple, obvious and natural which you learned about in kindergarten: people can't hit you or take your stuff. You and most everyone you know lives their lives by these simple rules and it works pretty well. Anarchism is just extending these simple rules to everyone in society and not making special exceptions for a class of people called "the State."
I don't think it means that at all. The corporations would lose all their protections and cease to exist. Thousands and thousands of wildcat businesses would start up overnight.
