Anarchy is a political structure where there’s basically no one in charge, right? But wouldn’t that just create a power vacuum that would filled by organized crime, corporations, etc.? Then, after that power vacuum is filled, we’re right back at square one, and someone is in charge.

Are there any political theorists that have come up with a solution to this problem?

  • EffortlessGrace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Taking the definition at its etymological root, all anarchy means is “without rule”.

    In my head-canon, that doesn’t necessarily mean the lack of laws, state, institutions or governance; the implication is that there are no citizens or individuals with permanently elevated authority in the polity of government. Without rulers.

    Many, of course, disagree with this mostly on the basis of practicality, but I’d like to think it’s another way to describe the concept of “No gods, no kings, no masters, no slaves.”