Anarchy
 

Would a state of anarchy be good or bad for the populace of any given first world country and why?

The main two theories to contrast here are that of Thomas Hobbes who in his book Leviathan stated that the 'State of Nature' would be a land of scarcity, no industry would thrive because why on earth would you plant a tree if you're not fully entitled to the apple and people would generally be distrustful of eachother, leading to a perpetual state of war. Without central authority there would be no insurance that you are not a constant target of other peoples' opression and each and every person would know this.

Contrast Rousseau who believed that pre-society earth was a fantastic forest of plenty, where humans led primarily solitary lives without fear of leaderships or persecution, there would always be enough apples provided by nature herself as every man would only take what he needed. Greed is a contrivance of the state and fear of other people taking what we want is a purely social phenonoma manufactured by a feudal/capitalist evolution of society.

Basically think The Coral island vs Lord of the Flies.

We should ask Abe Is Now. He would know.

Seconded OANST's idea.

Thankfully, we have a central authority that does insure that we are a constant target for oppression.

I believe communitarian anarchy could work in an industrialized society, but primitive societies are more suited for that kind of government. The bushmen along with other hunter-gatherer societies live in anarchy and it works quite well for them.

On a more serious note, I recommend that you read a book called 'The Dispossessed (an ambiguous utopia)'. It does a good job of trying to answer these questions without really picking a side.


Edit: This book contains the origin of the ansible, a machine that is used by many SF writers.

Rousseau clearly had no understanding of early man or prehistoric times. A desperate age of fear and death, where humans, who were most certainly not solitary, struggled to survive, competed with one another and other groups for resources (food, land, shelter, mates etc), and died before thirty years of age, often of the loss of their own teeth.

Anarchy sucks because it's meaning is lost on just about everyone who thinks it would be a good idea.

Truth.

Even Political Philosophers?

(Just about everyone)

Meaning your typical dipshit teenager.

People who know what the fuck they're talking about are excluded.

That's why I'm still in this discussion.

It's a stupid form of society and lies at the very heart of conservativism.

I might enjoy it, though.

I dislike people who just look at anarchy and think "omg wtf u sux0rs."

I'm not a left-wing liberal dick who thinks that there shouldn't be a government because of all the computer chips that they've installed into my mind, and I'm not a right-wing gun-totin' douche who thinks that hippies who oppose America can go to hell either.

In a setting in which Anarchy would work, I support it. In a setting in which it would ruin everything, I don't. No one system works in every situation.

Um, duh...

I know it's obvious.

I think the better thing for you to say would be to describe the setting in which it works and how it would work...

A world without scarcity.

Anarchy generally doesnt work.

A world without treachery, hate or ambition.

I'll agree with the first sentence, in that he seems to be guessing instead of actually having done some research. But I'll have to challenge some of what you said. I'll base this on the upper paleolithic era. humans lived in tribes or bands of 25-100 individuals before the onset of agriculture. Average lifespan then was 33, so most died after the age of thirty, and they had potential to live till 60+ even thought it was rare. Food was usually plentiful, northern and eastern Europe had heavy reindeer and horse populations, America had buffalo, and I don't think I even need to mention Africa. Most of these animals traveled in herds, and therefor could be hunted in great numbers. They were nomads and would move when food became scarce in a region. Depending on populations where the tribe lived, there would ussualy be more than enough land for everyone. They often lived in tents of animal skin. As to loosing their teeth, most of the evidence I've seen points towards populations on a natural or "caveman" diet having excellent dental health. They may have lost teeth due to injury or malnutrition during periods with food shortage, but I don't think teeth loss was a leading cause of death.

I think life might have been really good during this time. When not hunting, most time would be spent around a campfire partying, socializing and playing sports

sources:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref424412
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7035
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib.../pricetoc.html

EDIT: A world without jealousy!

Can you prove that those desires are not founded by the concept of Authority?

I think he means that they're founded on the concept of scarcity.

We should bring back Gladiatorial combat to replace War.

And sex.