Local Government VS National Government?

Would our country be better off in Anarchy

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KRoyal

Moderator
I’m just wondering what our country would be like if we no long ruled at the national level but at the local level, do you think it would be better or worse and why?

I'm really just wondering what it would be like i'm not very political myself and i'm not looking to rile anyone up so mods if this is Inappropriate please close and delete, But i'm just wondering.

EDIT: took out the Anarchy word didn't mean that...
 
Last edited:
I know it's a fantasy a lot enjoy, but anarchy would be far worse in the absence of any government. That is, if we are talking about actual anarchy, and not the complete libertarian society that many anarchists now use the term.

At a minimum, people would have to cooperate to survive. That cooperation would include setting rules of interpersonal conduct. Even if the society is completely libertarian, estabishing where your rights end and another's begin would require common guidelines. You've basically just reestablished government, in the form of a direct democracy. Where there is a government, there is no anarchy in its true sense. And setting up the rules, determining the limits, and then enforcing said limits requires imposing those rules on individuals who disagree with them, and choose not to involve themselves.

Even if the world was nominally given over to anarchy, there would be pockets which didn't, as people banded together. If those bands were predatory, they would defeat those who failed to cooperate. Basically, the anarchists would lose to the predators.
 
Ever watch Blackhawk Down.

No working government in Somalia work out well.
Rwanda is nice too.

I used to always say that the only dumb question is the
one you don't ask.

But I was wrong.
 
Nah, society needs a government. We just need people with integrity running it. Most people are followers and need guidance. Uncontrolled without boundries, this country would go chaotic.
 
Anarchy -- the real thing, not the minimalistic government that libertarians actually aspire to -- is an unstable thing, sorta like a vacuum. It never stays that way, some sort of order has to come about. Usually, that takes the form of some sort of warlordism, like what we saw in Somalia. The strong and ruthless assume control through force and as we've seen that is usually not a pretty sight.
 
I didn't mean to make anyone mad I was just pondering on things and thinking out loud and i think i used the wrong word anarchy means chaos i didn't mean that I meant does anyone think we as a nation could rule ourselves better locally than the government does nationally?
 
i think i used the wrong word anarchy means chaos i didn't mean that I meant does anyone think we as a nation could rule ourselves better locally than the government does nationally?
Click to expand...
Well, if you put it that way, then for the most part I'd say "yes". And, for the most part, that is what the system that the "Founding Fathers" set up and was their actual intention -- where the government at the national level handles only those matters that HAVE to be handled at the national level (security of the borders, relations with other nations, relations between the various states, providing a common currency for streamlined commerce, and that's about it), leaving the bulk of government to the states and local jurisdictions. That's the way it is SUPPOSED to be done. We've strayed a LONG way from that.
 
I said sorry and I changed everything that i first typed I didn't mean the Anarchy comment you can close if you want because now everyone that has already voted, Voted for the wrong question and the poll is useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top