If an anarchist group attained political power, would they by principle have to dissolve their own government?
375256
No.  Anarchists believe that the citizens should vote on every issue.  They are against having any person or small group making decisions for others.  The word means "no chief"; it doesn't mean "no law."
1172718
No.Because with as much power as you would be wielding, you would set yourself up as a dictator.
1119324
Anarchy can't exist as a government. It's a stateless society with no heirarchy.\n\nAnarchy does not mean chaos. The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." \n\nDon't take my word for it. Read the Anarchist Faq.
754800
That is the most moronic law I've ever heard of.. We've not become a stupid nation we've become a greedy nation you know somehow the govronment is making money off that law. no wonder I'm an anarchist
489643
How much order do you want? We are not in an Anarchic society, in fact we are probably more controlled than any population in the past. Have you tried having a ciggareete in an airport, parking your car where you need to park or try to affect any government policy (National or local). You will soon realise that we are far, far away from Anarchy.Let the Individual do what he wants unless it hurts others.
240950
I think we should.  People would then move to where their ideas are held important and are tolerated.  The states that ended up most successful would become models for the others.  Also decentralization would help remove the imperialistic tendencies of the federal government and cause less world wide hatred.
549997
no, the u.s. would not allow them or any other state to secede(remember the civil war?). plus it would be in the state's best interests not to. several years ago some separatist wackos found a loophole that claimed texas was still a republic, but a judge ruled against them. end of story.
768954
An Anarchist writes her own definition of Anarchism: \nThe philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary."\n\n"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property: liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. \n\nAs wikipedia states...\n\nAnarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and hierarchical authority.\n\nThe term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.\n\nThere are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference. Other than being opposed to the state, there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance. \nPreferred economic arrangements are one of the many areas of disagreement for anarchists.\n\n ******\nSince anarchist generally disagree with the forming and maintaining of nations and borders, often as well as property ownership in general, they disagree with one of the fundamental reasons for war as we know it.  They often disagree with organized religion and always with class so they are opposing the other two most common sources for war. Though this should not lead to the assumption that anarchist are pacifist. Some are, some are not.\n\nAlso anarchism should not be confused with chaos. Chaos and order are found mutually within nature. The kind of chaos that implies violence and hysteria is often attached to a derogatory second definition of anarchism. Ironically a definition written and perpetuated by its opponents.\n\nTo make large scale decisions often they use the consensus based model of decision making. Sometimes they vote. It depends. They even sometimes follow rules if each participant agrees ahead of time on what rules and all have an equal voice. The main point is if someone yells run, an anarchist may follow their lead, but by choice.\n\nAnarchism as a social "system" has been summed up to me in the great dishes conundrum as people who feel everyone should do their own dishes, instead of electing a leader to decide who does them and when.\n\nHope that helps
522558
Anarchy simply means no formal form of government. No universally, or at least socially agreed upon set of laws. It is the purest form of freedom and works in small scale circumstances.
332286
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - The Declaration of Independence\n\nYes, you read that right. If you believe our government has become despotic it is not just your right, but your DUTY, to overthrow that government.\n\nDespotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or a group which rules with absolute political power. \n\nDoes it fit?
302649
If we used the same tactics we used during or right after WWII, the liberals would scream.   \nI think crewl and inhumain would be the terms used.\n\nI would also hear "just leave and let them form thier own government"  Boy, those are the intelligent ones who have NEVER studies history and a political vaccuum.
465090
Living in anarchy sounds cool at first (I used to be an anarchist myself) but when you look deeper into it, it doesn't really make sense.  I mean, the Pistols were cool and all, but they couldn't have thought too much about the consequences of anarchy.  If we were living in a state of anarchy, there would be no laws to abide by and all the sickos would come out and start doing whatever they wanted and no one could do anything about it.  Someone could just go aound killing people and there would be no justice.  And since there would be no checks or balances to ensure the safety of citizens, we'd all pretty much be screwed.  \n\nI agree that the government is messed up, and I doubt it does much good for the people the way it's being run right now, but if there was no government we'd probably revert back to earlier times when robbery and murders were common occurances.  I would personally prefer to see a government that does a good job in governing and helping its people rather than messing around behind their backs and being as corrupt as ours is today...
537764
No, because the government would really have to do something if they actually got real peace...The government keeps the people scared and themselves in power
382940
Yes give to the Arcadian kicked out by the Britt's, thank god for king Louie of France.\nTo answer your question yes they should but its impossible to do that because Government would have to comp all of us
26957
Allow room for freedom.  In a perfect world people would be able to govern themselves and make decisions based on free will.  Maybe smaller socialist anarchisms would evolve from the groups where people are mostly centralized, but a large government is bound to create trouble.
514434
absolutely, Mexico is a good example.  Where a few super rich control the government.  Have drug lords controling the rest.  Keep the populous in abject poverty.  The brutality is over whelming.  The masses could over throw the few and take back there government and establish one that isn't so corrupt.  That would benefit the people.\nimmigrateing to America while understandable is hardly the answer.
623756
we they can start by getting saddam out of power, well wait, we did that for them. then they can start by forming an independent goverment, no wait we did that too. well, i supose they need to form a top notch military power. oh hell we did that for them too. well i supose they can keep following our guidance, and learning to take control of their own country, and everything should be fine!!!