Why?

[Guest]

This question is not so much why anarchy, as it is why not government. What about government is so evil that we must abolish it completly, rather than reform it the best we can?
Now, I know governments do commit atrocities , such as war, torture, etc... but there are some governments out there that have reformed past that, such as Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark etc... Why can't we do that globaly, instead of overthrowing them completly? I think that both would take equally long to implement.
So, in summary, what about government is so inherently evil that another system is necessary?
All theories and horror stories welcome.

[Kronos]

Authority means anyone who exerts their freedom to limit the others'. Anyone, a dictator, a king, a President, a policeman,... Some people see it as good such as it limits negative freedom (murder, rape,...); and I wouldn't have anything against it if it wasn't because I had never asked for it.

So why? Because representative democracy is based on choosing unknown people who do the work for you and keep the work of other strangers going. Because politics should be a common concern and not jobs for the experts. Because we the people have vote but not voice.

But over everything else, because whether you're anarchist or not, we all have the feeling that something is just going wrong here.

Though I'm an aficionado and have just started to understand what Anarchism means; so expect the replies from other users be more complete than mine.

[Guest]

This question is not so much why anarchy, as it is why not government. What about government is so evil that we must abolish it completly, rather than reform it the best we can?

In even the most socially enlightened liberal democracies (Norway?), the contract between the government and state is based on the election of rulers at various levels of government, for specified durations, by the voting citizens. This, more or less is the representative democracy of the Roman Senate and not the (somewhat) populist democracy of the Greek City-States.

This system engenders apathy and powerlessness. With exceptions, voter turnout is typically low. Even in a totally classless society this system will create divisions between the political class and the general populace. The voting citizens are essentially abdicating responsibility to their rulers until they need to beg for their jobs again. When political positions in the population are polarized a situation arises where those who voted for the losers are subjected to many years of policies they dislike - a true tyranny of the majority. Look at the last ten years of US politics to see the damage to civil society that arises.

Another inherent danger in government is centralization of power. The world is full of evidence that illuminates how power is naturally corrupting. Centralized power permits the subversion of democracy by the lobbying activities of wealthy corporations, individuals and organizations. When I still believed in government by liberal democracy, I was shocked to receive a response from Senator Feinstein, regarding an email I sent as part of a campaign for net neutrality, that stated her position as seeking to balance the needs of consumers and the network providers. She made it clear that she considered some corporations as part of her constituency.

Campaign promises are non-binding and grand ideas rarely translate into substantive action due to the natural inertia of the system and the influence of the markets, police and military.

Perhaps the most insidious damage to society as a whole arises from welfare provided by the authoritarian government bureaucracy. It dis-empowers the needy at the same time it seeks to provide aid, rewarding dependency and gaming the system for maximum benefit, punishing honesty instead of helping people to help themselves. No amount of reform will fix this, the fundamental mechanism is broken.

I believe all governments are profoundly terrified of the power of individuals organizing themselves. Looking at the way that even liberal democracies deploy heavily armed riot police to deal with civil protests is alarming and indicative of a deep-rooted fear of losing control.

Finally, allow me to point out that even the most minimal of night-watch governments would retain an army and a police force and would be fully capable of engaging in wars of military adventurism, "wars" against drugs and terrorism and repression against civil protest. The Minarchist position (which I once held) strips society of many protections and tips the balance towards an armed government underwriting the actions of a wealthy elite.

Authoritarian forms of government naturally acquire power, not relinquish power.

[AFriendOfDurruti]

Here's a nice article on democracy from Anarchist News.

(That's also my reply above, wasn't signed in)

[variagil]

There are people that believes the new technologies can give responses to a direct democracy ["Chaos and Order" Escohotado, A.]. In Zurich there was a referenda about playing soccer world championship games in this city and people decided they didn't want the noise and disturbs this games will produce. Anarchists hope the anarchist culture of assemblies and direct democracy will give this democracy not only for free men in Atens but for all citicens.

Anarchists also know the governements are against direct democracy and anarchy, and anarchists have been persecuted by their ideas. The power is something abstract that keeps himself with strenght.

[hawkins21]

This answer to your question is on a conscious level. You should look at how ideas, language, propositions, statements, etc affect our phenomenological experiences(in layman terms how they affect out world view and our brains).

A good example of this sort of things is religion: Why do people tend to believe in this but not that? All of this is on a conscious level. The fact that we accept hierarchical systems is a conscious decision not a social one.

To be more direct in answering your question you should look at the metaphysical nature of governments, laws and ideologies. You should look at what sort of actions can arise out such concepts(or if you want you can say systems of thought). I'll give you an example: The nature of having a government may allow people to experience repressiveness, coercion, oppression, authoritarian relationships, competition, manipulation, deprivation, manipulation,etc. The same can be said about the nature of an ideology like capitalism: Competition, greed, private ownership, crime, etc. And last but not least laws: Unjust laws may occur, the nature of laws allows for no exceptions which in turn will throw morality and ethics out the door, authoritarianism, etc.

This is the perspective that I take when it comes to why we should abolish, at least most governments. It all depends on if the circumstances we are in and if this circumstance can correlate with the principles that we are trying to live on.

We can always reform a social issue, constitution, etc but how many times will one need to keep reforming before they realize that such an incremental system is not efficient for progress?