I think the most common arguments against Anarchism are made by people who dont know what Anarchism is. Also there are different forms of Anarchism.

Some Anarchists actually advocate laws, but not all. It really boils down to the collectivist vs individualist argument. Proudhon believed that humans had a right to defend themselves from those who victimize the weak, and also believed that collective self defense against rapists, murderers, ect, was justified just as much as individual self defense. Individualists like the egoists would reject this notion. Anarchists generally reject the laws of the state, but some Anarchists believe that natural laws are valid to the extent that they are limited to self defense, and for collectivists, collective defense of communities from predators.

There is a Wikipedia article on Anarchist Law here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

An important section from that same article deals with enforceability and how it is or is not compatible with Anarchist theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anar...rceability


We only have limited examples of large scale Anarchy in practice, but if we look at the most successful (though temporary) example of Anarchy in practice with the Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalists, we see that they actually formed a functional society and a workable economy, and that it can actually work. Other countries had to intervene to squash the movement militarily. Otherwise I think it would have worked. You can read about the Spanish syndicalists here.

flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html


With the individualists, you mostly get philosophies that reject organized class rebellion in favor of "personal rebellion" and philosophies like "illegalism" that reject all laws but do not seek to replace it with egalitarian social structures based on the even distribution of power among citizens. With the collectivists you get the advocation of democratic social structures, but not democracy in the sense of voting for leaders, but rather a decentralized system of voluntary associations and bottom up decision making.

One key issue that separates the two is the idea that groups can collectively act as "moral agents".

Two>points>conceptz

No>state=self>responsiblity
B/c
Life is not a static form but a dynamic process
&
Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit

my
keyboard>is>broke>
&
the>state>cant>fix>it

Self>Responsibility>&>Anarchy
Go>hand>in>hand

More>to>say>when>my>state>welfare>check>comes>with>a>nipple>on>it

Giggles

I find that most people who say that anarchy can't work don't know (or particularly care) about the history of various anarchist movements or movements with anarchist-like principles (Diggers, Ranters, Spanish anarchists, Gnostic Christians, some indigenous peoples, intentional communities, etc.) However, I do usually point out in response to anti-anarchy arguments that yes, there have been cases of anarchy "working" with various degrees of success, and if they're willing to listen I give some of those examples. I usually take a simple approach though, because I realize that most people who fear anarchy are really afraid they'd get stomped in such a situation.

The word "anarchy" means literally "no rulers," and if someone is trying to coerce someone else, that coercion is a form of ruling. Someone who would rape, pillage, and steal in order to dominate others is not really an anarchist. After all, that's what governments themselves do. Humans seem to take care of themselves pretty well given enough resources and information needed to acquire, use, and share those resources in a sustainable way. It's generally when resources or information are scarce--or made to appear scarcer than they really are--that there's a problem and we end up with a few people "in control." I think it's the (perceived) scarcity rather than "human nature" that's the biggest problem.

Peace,
--Andy

I was involved in a debate on this subject, this is what someone threw at me:

"Consider this scenerio: You have a town of 100 people. Unfortunately, there have been several years of poor harvests, and a hard winter ahead where many people in the town, say, 60-70 may starve or die of exposure.

What is the "collectivist" response to this situation?



Distribute the remaining food equally, possibly weakening everyone and increasing the death rate.

Pick out the individuals most likely to benefit the community and strengthen them to ensure survival, while likely condeming others to death.

Pick out individuals by random lottery to ensure thier surivial, while again, likely condeming others to death.



Now, in the first choice, everyone has about a 2/3 chance of dying.
In the other two choices, you're asking some people to basically willingly lay down and die. And they also require a functioning governing body (albiet minimalist) to administer.

In any of the three situations, the need to survive will tempt people to try and increase the chances of themselves and those they care about. Eventually, after time, possibly after this scenerio has played out two, three, a dozen times over the years, the collectivist system will collapse under exterior stresses where individuals will use thier great freedom (which you seem to say is the goal of anarcho-communism) to take things from others to ensure thier own surivial.

Furthermore, small collectivist units like this are entirely incapable of taking on large projects that have resulted in many of our modern advances. How can you run an effective railroad that transports goods across the nation? How can you, for example, bring together all the chemicals, let alone the processing facilities, to manufacture a cancer drug?
Still further, how can you train and educate the researchers who make those drugs without organized universities? Is each communal unit going to have thier own colleges? If not, who decides who goes to the colleges that do exist?

The problem is, anarcho-communism may work on small scale communities with abundant resources. But this fails soon after. How do yo deal with crime or those otherwise breaking the rules of collectivism? Who determines guilt? Does a whole town of 5,000 people come together and administer justice? What happens when a traveler from another town comes to yours, is punished for a crime, but it believed to be innocent by his home collective? What happens when they take issue with that and take action against you?

And again, what happens when a more organized society with an effective government, more efficient industry, and organized, government run armies decides it wants the land your utopic collectives are living on?

Anarchy, again, is an entirely non-sustainable state, no matter if you say it's for collective gain, or individual gain. History has proven that it's simply out-competed by other forms of societies."

You can see that I consider myself an anarcho-communist, disregarding how valid you find this option I think it's the most socially functional form of anarchy in our current culture, but I won't go indepth on that as it's not the topic of this discussion.

1. There is no "human nature."

There is a range of human behavior, which is acted on negatively or positively by human society. Centralized coercive socities support and reward centralized, coercive human behavior. Decentralized, cooperative societies support and reward decentralized and cooperative human behavior.

2. This turns out not to be the case. One need only to look at the lessons of history to see that when centralized "law and order," if that's what it is, breaks down, the people take care of themselves just fine, thank you. Look at any natural disaster to observe how the local humans take care of each other, until shoved rudely aside by the central authority when they show up late.

hayduke2000.blogspot.com/

It's truly amazing despite all the crimes committed by governments, people still religiously cling to the idea governments are necessary to protect life, liberty and property. You can even point out governments not only have no duty to protect anyone, but also do a disasterous job at whatever they bother doing. Despite overwhelming evidence government is not only unnecessary, corrupt and a cancer on the world, its victims continue to revere them. Governments are nothing more than an a group of killers, thieves, & liars who provide services at the barrel of a gun.