Anarchy
 

Just need a little help for a project. I've heard arguments for and against anarchy as a form of government (or lack thereof), but I'm more interested in arguments for. I'm also not quite clear on what anarchy is. Is it really "no rules, no government" that I've been taught all my life, or is there more to it?

As far as i know, anarchy is pretty much "You make your rules, the strongest overcome the rule of the weak" so i really cant see anything to say "for" the damn thing

The only "for" arguments I can think of are that people can handle problems without help from the government, as in, they can protect themselves without laws. The system itself doesn't work in practice, though.

One of my friends lived with a self-proclaimed anarchist for a while but they key part about anarchism is that there is no unifying definition or proscription. There are many many different flavours of anarchy. The key theme is removing "coercive controls" as in bodies which force people to do certain things. Many of the interpretations depend on what exactly coersion and control means and who exerts it. This depends on views of freedom all the way from a Satrian "radical freedom" to a social contract type theory which states that we barely free if at all.
The most unifying point is really the removal of the state as we know it. Most anarchy proscribes self-organised communal type systems where all the power rests with the individual who is completely free to opt in to these systems (and has power in these systems) or avoid them.
And that's really hte eky argument with anarchy. At the moment in the world, you have to live under a state which is going to force you into obligations and do do things. You can choose which state you live under but you have to live under one. Under an anarchic system, you can choose to join states or you can join none or you can form your own and the states that you join will have you as an equal partner so you get free choice for decisions and can leave at any time.
It's based around an implicit assumption that people should be free to decide what kind fo state that want live under and how it is formed rather than currentely where you hve little choice in what state you live under.
I haven't presented a very strong argument but I hope that helps.

The key things to remember are that
A) YOu can't just take a current country and remove the government as a way to think of anarchy. It pretty much mandates a complete change in how we think of power and responsibility.
and
B) Very few anarchists are "no rules". Rules will exist bnut these rules are made by collectised groups who are all exactly equal and can opt in and out out of any group at any time and make new groups of rules. The key is the lack of "coercisive controls" by any group so that they cannot make other groups follow their rules any more.
Is not really an anarchaic system (except for a few completely radical anarchists) as you have simply replaced a coercive state with coercive individuals both of whom force people to follow thier rules. The trick with anarchy is that you choose what rules you want to follow and if one person/group/body has some form of control to make others follow thier rules it is not anarchy.
I'm not sure how good an analogy is but I think of it like a parliament. Each person in the parliament is free to follow thier own mandate/ideals/motivations. People group together in loose amalgamations "parties" which set thier own internal rules as the individuals belive it is better for them to make a group as they can work together to achieve more. These parties then join up with other parties and the two or more parties pick and choose from each others rules to make a coalition. They maintain thier own internal rules but also pick and choose rules from the other parties so everyone can work together. But at any time a party could leave a coalition and a person could leave a party.
They don't, however, NOT because of any external control (as our current political systems use on people in them) but because they feel it is better for them to remain even if they dislike some of the rules. And eachp erson has exactly one vote so all have equal power.

The problem with this system, however, is this: How do you keep people from asserting their morals over others? The only way to do that is to enforce rules about it, and that just defeats the whole purpose. The fact is, people are selfish creatures, and will try to subjugate others. Anarchism fails for the same reason that communism fails: People are selfish.

Anarchy would work if it were possible to have a utopian society. But like "utopia" actually means, it is nowhere. People are, by the very laws of nature, concerned with their own well-being before that of others. Once you remove a formal government, you lose the protection it provides from whatever asshole is ready to sweep in and take whatever he wants or take over entirely. The structure keeps things stable and relatively safe. Case in point, dictatorships. We, as people of democratic societies (most of us, at least), look at a dictatorship and think it's horrible. But monarchy is totally okay, because they have God backing them, right? PFFT! Monarchy is a dictatorship in a pretty package and a line of succession kept within one very inbred family. Whether it's apple-polished or not, it keeps the citizens safe by making sure no one else takes over from across the border and just starts killing people. By having a centralized power, you open up the ability to defend your people from the outside with a military. If someone tries to make a mess of things on the inside, you use the military on them, too. It keeps life stable. Not necessarily nice, but stable. If you don't have a government to protect the masses, you'll get chaos until a government is put in place to keep things orderly. Little family groups worked well when we weren't stacking families hundreds of layers deep with our high population and limited space. That's really all you need when that's really all you have. For our populace planet, government is required to keep life running.

Anarchy, eh? Hmmmm. Well, one obvious plus is lack of taxes. You make what you make, and nothing is taken from you ("legally"). Another is the lack of laws governing illicit substances (drink when you want, smoke what you want, who cares?). It's possibly the biggest promotion of the individual for any type of government (or lack thereof).

Of course, the pluses I'm describing are for pure anarchy. In the world, though, like every other system, anarchy is never "pure".

I actually think anarchy is somewhat possible for human existence at some point, but not now. Anarchy would reduce GDP, and thus would become weaker compared to other forms of government, and would be subjugated unless the anarchists were heavily armed, but in a true anarchy, they likely wouldn't be heavily armed because mass production would likely fall to the wayside, so weapons production would also fall. :/

It's possible to work on a small scale, I'm sure there are polynesian islands that operate in anarchy, or hidden tribes in the Amazon or Africa that operate somewhere near anarchy.

Um, do you know why anarchy wouldn't be that sweet?
If I'm not wrong people kill each other nowadays. But many of those who have killed are sent to prison.
In anarchy there wouldn't be laws and prisons, no police at all. For some that means that they are going to die and for some that they are going to kill people who they don't like.
And nowadays weapons are more dangerous. It's easier to kill than in the old times when people lived in anarchy, in the state of nature.
As it has already been said, anarchy wont work because of mankind.

Anarchy on a global level would work I think if everyone was equal; if it was impossible for any person or organization to take advantage of any other, if everyone was capable of sustaining themselves and if there was no science or anything in need of research. (I can't imagine how, for example, HIV vaccine research would work in anything resembling a state of anarchy.)

In short, if we were all superheroes.

Meanwhile, I have a theory that we actually live in a "rule of the strongest" anarchy. It's possible for anyone with sufficient martial force to go against all established rules and systems entirely at their whim, after all. And the only way for any government to actually enforce its rule is by superior might. You yourself have the ability to decide no rules apply to you, and exist in a state of anarchy and ultimate freedom, until such a point as someone stronger than you stops you from doing so.

Why do I feel like I'm paraphrasing George Carlin?