Anarchy. What would it be like ?

[DougW]

I mean, complete anarchy. No government at all. No police, no court. Nothing.

[BYU 14]

Somalia comes to mind

[Scarecrow]

Have you been following the Browns front office soap opera?

[path12]

Lots of squabbling fiefdoms.

[Marc Vaughan]

Very brief for most of us

[panerd]

I assume the question is about the United States? If it happened tomorrow? Obviously since everyone is used to a central government that provides close to everything from birth until death it would be a major collapse.

If it were to happen gradually over time? I would say more like the Wild West or some of the early colonies. The introduction of Somalia into any discussion ignores the fact that Africa has its own sets of problems that exist in most of the sub saharan countries with central governments. Sudan has problems bigger than Somalia and would be considered the exact opposite of an anarchist society.

EDIT: Not advocating it one bit. I enjoy sitting at home watching tv with my internet and air conditionting. I also don't think it would neccessarly become Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Very brief for most of us

Haha. Probably true.

Originally Posted by panerd

I assume the question is about the United States?.

Yes, my bad. I definitely should have been specific.

My question was in regards to the U.S. And obviously, a "tomorrow is Anarchy day" would be problematic. But, as you say - if it happened slowly, so people had a chance to adapt.

I think, as it was happening, violence would be high. But, I think eventually it'd calm down. People would learn to defuse, they'd know if you stabbed your neighbor because his dog shit on your lawn .. his brother would find you.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by DougW

I mean, complete anarchy. No government at all. No police, no court. Nothing.

Read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road", I'm pretty sure it'll be like that.

[lungs]

Clans and tribes would form around who has the food.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Read Cormac McCarthy's "The Road", I'm pretty sure it'll be like that.

Nah, I don't think people would be resorting to cannibalism that soon. Plus if anything our cultural obsession with doomsday media would have prepared us a little better - you'd have people setting up various communities and power structures in no time. The show was horrible, and I'm not sure cities would turn out that well, but if anything Under the Dome hits the mark closer than The Road imo.

Of course, that also leads to questions about why the government just collapsed, and whether there's some incipient catastrophe like in The Road. Kinda hard to predict without knowing what the fundamental change was.

[cartman]

I am an anti-Christ
I am an anarchist,
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it.
I wanna destroy the passerby
'Cos I wanna be anarchy

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Nah, I don't think people would be resorting to cannibalism that soon.

That line made me laugh for some reason. I haven't seen the road, but some of my neighbors do look delicious, I'm not sure how long I could hold out.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Nah, I don't think people would be resorting to cannibalism that soon. Plus if anything our cultural obsession with doomsday media would have prepared us a little better - you'd have people setting up various communities and power structures in no time. The show was horrible, and I'm not sure cities would turn out that well, but if anything Under the Dome hits the mark closer than The Road imo.

Of course, that also leads to questions about why the government just collapsed, and whether there's some incipient catastrophe like in The Road. Kinda hard to predict without knowing what the fundamental change was.

Anarchy just isn't sustainable long-term, ultimately there would be some power structure. But I would believe if you wanted anarchy, it would be due a calamity that could not be resolved in a short-term timeframe.

Anarchy's endgame would very much be like "The Road" as everyone would be out for themselves and scavaging resources.

[markprior22]

All you gotta do is see the people at a Wal Mart the day a big snow storm is predicted. If that doesn't make you think how bad things could be, I don't know what would.

[TroyF]

True anarchy wouldn't exist for that long. Someone would make a power grab and plenty of people would create their own police forces. If it all started tomorrow, there would be areas that would disintegrate quickly. There are smaller communities in the midwest that would not see an immediate, massive change.

Within a few months, new power structures would be in place (with lots of infighting in certain areas for that power) Those of us that made it after the first few months would probably start to find some normalcy quicker than most would imagine.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Anarchy just isn't sustainable long-term, ultimately there would be some power structure. But I would believe if you wanted anarchy, it would be due a calamity that could not be resolved in a short-term timeframe.

Anarchy's endgame would very much be like "The Road" as everyone would be out for themselves and scavaging resources.

The Road also had the volcanic eruptions or whatever that killed off all plants and animals. Barring that, I have no doubt there would be some structural shocks and possibly fighting over resources initially, but I think most of us are smart enough to realize that having some sort of stability where one person can grow food and another process it is better than just running into their field and eating the seeds and will provide a better outcome for all of us.

I mean, humans went from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian society even though an agrarian society was much much harder back then (both compared to the present day and compared to contemporary hunter-gathering) and there was no prior history of a "civilized" society. I have no doubt that most people today would be even quicker to grasp the concept that creating at least a decent sized community and taking advantage of economies of scale is preferable to every man for himself.

Plus, the most likely government collapse imo would come about due to some sort of bio-infection that wiped out a large % of the population - which would drive people apart initially, but make the competition for resources much less of an issue.

Either way, I'm going to my fort-island and learning to love the taste of fish, but I'd hope that a decent portion of my neighbors are up there too, particularly because that gets you past the initial distrust stage. You guys are welcome to come too as long as you can carry your weight and we all agree Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Or at least Eli.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Very brief for most of us

Sad agree. I feel like things would go very last of us style. Roving bandits. People doing crazy things they convince themselves are for the greater good. Not a pleasant place to be.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Very brief for most of us

This, I suspect.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Either way, I'm going to my fort-island and learning to love the taste of fish, but I'd hope that a decent portion of my neighbors are up there too, particularly because that gets you past the initial distrust stage. You guys are welcome to come too as long as you can carry your weight and we all agree Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Or at least Eli.

I, for one, welcome my new fort island overlords and their ideals that stress a correct assessment of Eli Manning

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

I assume the question is about the United States? If it happened tomorrow? Obviously since everyone is used to a central government that provides close to everything from birth until death it would be a major collapse.

Obviously!

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Obviously!

SI

This is the reaction to only austerity measures with a government still in place and a police force. Not sure how a complete elimination of the government overnight would not cause a total collapse. Are we disagreeing on the use of the term obviously or the fact that the federal government pretty much covers every basic need from birth until death? (Food, water, shelter, clothing)

[cartman]

Regulation is not the same thing as provides. Or did I somehow miss out on a clothing ration from Uncle Sam?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Regulation is not the same thing as provides. Or did I somehow miss out on a clothing ration from Uncle Sam?

Dear lord the statists can't handle a simple discussion of complete anarchy without getting their panties in a wad over semantics. I think the United States would be in trouble if the government collapsed overnight. However I'm sure you and SI have some correction to my wording. Hooray! You win! Yeah!

[cartman]

Someone's panties are in a wad alright. But not mine, I'm commando at the moment.

Semantics would be arguing the use of 'oversight' versus 'regulation'. You are positing that the government itself is providing those things to the majority of the population. Which in the US is not a true statement.

I agree that any society would be in trouble if the government disappeared overnight. The reasons things function rather well is that the government takes care of things so that individuals and business don't have to worry about, like policing, backing a currency, and maintaining transportation infrastructure. Food, clothing, water and shelter would still be available in the event of a government collapse. But acquiring and retaining these things would be infinitely more difficult.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

This is the reaction to only austerity measures with a government still in place and a police force. Not sure how a complete elimination of the government overnight would not cause a total collapse. Are we disagreeing on the use of the term obviously or the fact that the federal government pretty much covers every basic need from birth until death? (Food, water, shelter, clothing)

Cartman's initial response pretty much hits the nail on the head: regulation does not mean providing. Just because you receive some segment of government assistance does not mean the government provides you with every need. Is the tax deduction for my mortgage interest providing for my shelter? How about that I have a job at a government institution this year? Does that mean everything I get is from the government? How about the 7 years before that where I worked at a private corporation? Was I then a "maker" and not a "taker"? What if that corporation was FedEx? Does the fact that the government provides FedEx roads to drive and deliver on count as assistance?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

Dear lord the statists can't handle a simple discussion of complete anarchy without getting their panties in a wad over semantics. I think the United States would be in trouble if the government collapsed overnight. However I'm sure you and SI have some correction to my wording. Hooray! You win! Yeah!

I guess I'm "getting my panties in a wad over semantics", by your definition. In my mind, I don't see the government providing close to everything from birth until death (your words). Or as you put it after that: Food, water, shelter, clothing. If that's really the view you have of the majority of the US, no wonder you're so anti-government.

EDIT: That said, they do provide security. So if the idea of rule by might means you get all of those items by force rather than this handy (and, admittedly, flawed) civilization we have now, I guess I could see that.

SI

[path12]

Gotta side with cartman & SI here.

But I am a euro-friendly socialist type so take that into account.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by panerd

This is the reaction to only austerity measures with a government still in place and a police force. Not sure how a complete elimination of the government overnight would not cause a total collapse. Are we disagreeing on the use of the term obviously or the fact that the federal government pretty much covers every basic need from birth until death? (Food, water, shelter, clothing)

Kinda ironic you would use the Greek riots as your example, since compared to them the US government is pretty close to Adam Smith or Milton Friedman's ideal. Even beyond that it doesn't work as a comparison because they weren't targeting their neighbors (well, okay, there were some horrific nationalistic stories that came out), but instead demanding the government pay them more. If the government completely disappeared, they wouldn't have been marching in the streets against it.

That's without even getting into the wildly divergent cultural gap. Using a Greek riot would be like watching a Panathanaikos game and assuming that's how Americans act at sporting events.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Either way, I'm going to my fort-island and learning to love the taste of fish, but I'd hope that a decent portion of my neighbors are up there too, particularly because that gets you past the initial distrust stage. You guys are welcome to come too as long as you can carry your weight and we all agree Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Or at least Eli.

I'm there - and I'll raid the REI by my place for equipement before I head up. PM me the address so I can put it into my GPS?

[Suicane75]

If anarchy happened tomorrow? The hillbillies and backward slackjaws I call neighbors, who agitate me to no end at the moment, would be my biggest blessing.

[cartman]

I watch Hillbilly Blood, Survivorman, Doomsday Preppers, Criminal Minds and Spongebob Squarepants. I think I'm sufficiently ready to handle the immediate transition period.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by cartman

Food, clothing, water and shelter would still be available in the event of a government collapse. But acquiring and retaining these things would be infinitely more difficult.

Would they still be available? For our levels of consumption these necessities are produced by specialists. Farming as a general concept may be the same but it has evolved quite a bit since the early 1900's, same with resourcing raw materials for shelter construction and clothing. I'd imagine if the government came crashing down the ability to produce these necessities to satisfy demand would come into question.

[cartman]

Sure you likely aren't going to be able to go down to the store and pick up your favorite beer and beef jerky. But that doesn't mean that it won't still be possible to make beer and beef jerky, or find someone who does. Hence the statement that acquiring things we take for granted would be infinitely more difficult.

[CU Tiger]

For me and my family, life wouldnt change a great deal in the immediate.
Now bigger picture, longer term I could see it being a major inconvenience. Certainly not a survive or perish equation.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm there - and I'll raid the REI by my place for equipment before I head up. PM me the address so I can put it into my GPS?

Just drive to downtown Portland and look out for the fort in the middle of the harbor.



Don't forget about the Freeport outlets on the way up - I know LL Bean is there, and I thought REI had a store there now as well. That does bring up an interesting question - in a true anarchy situation, do you target a store or two to raid, and if so, which one? A lot of people love to say a Gun store, but those would seem to be heavily protected by people with guns. An REI or LLBean isn't a bad choice - outdoor survival gear always comes in handy as a last resort. Getting some water purifying and/or desalinating equipment would be huge - there's always wells, but if you have to move around you don't want to worry about lugging water in bulk. Especially because I feel like the best food to stockpile early on would be like pasta/oatmeal - small, decently nutritious, very long shelf life - and you need water for those. It'd also probably be wise to stock up on some basic antibiotics from a hospital, but that could get dicey.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Just drive to downtown Portland and look out for the fort in the middle of the harbor.



Don't forget about the Freeport outlets on the way up - I know LL Bean is there, and I thought REI had a store there now as well. That does bring up an interesting question - in a true anarchy situation, do you target a store or two to raid, and if so, which one? A lot of people love to say a Gun store, but those would seem to be heavily protected by people with guns. An REI or LLBean isn't a bad choice - outdoor survival gear always comes in handy as a last resort. Getting some water purifying and/or desalinating equipment would be huge - there's always wells, but if you have to move around you don't want to worry about lugging water in bulk. Especially because I feel like the best food to stockpile early on would be like pasta/oatmeal - small, decently nutritious, very long shelf life - and you need water for those. It'd also probably be wise to stock up on some basic antibiotics from a hospital, but that could get dicey.

I'll totally tear apart the REI. They sell bows and arrows and hunting knives there too if I'm not mistaken.

Definitely fishing gear.

[ColtCrazy]

Small midwest town where Walmart would be a killing ground. I'd hit Ace Hardware here which has a little of everything: guns, bows, outdoor clothing, tools, seeds. I live in a close knit subdivision that would definitely band together to protect their own.

[JPhillips]

Easily the worst part would be losing posts.