I'm sure when you hear the word anarchy you immediately think of a dystopian society with people wielding machetes and machine guns running through a burning city all for a single glass of water. Anarchy will surely result in the death and destruction of everything. But before any assumptions are made consider the following:
The conservative "theory" you could say is built upon the idea of a limited government. Private industry will always do a better job than any government. The more power you give to any sort of governing body the more opportunity you give for them to screw up. On top of that, there is always going to be a high disapproval rating of any said government. People will disagree on how it should be run. Conflicting disputes will only drive people apart and cause violence. So, considering its many disadvantages and the theory of the smallest government possible, why not just have no government?
Getting rid of government altogether may get rid of the problems that come with them but we lose their benefits. So we must ask ourselves what those benefits are and decide whether or not losing them altogether would be beneficial.
Obviously progressive ideas such as universal healthcare are immediately out of the question. Governmental assistance and grants which we see currently in our governing body will also cease to exist. Everything that we are provided, obviously, we will lose and will ultimately be outsourced to private industry. But to me, the most dangerous thing we will lose is our personal protection. Without a police force or military, there will be nothing to protect our rights against domestic and foreign threats. No problem, you might think, protection can always be hired or bargained for. In Robert Nozick's book Anarchy, State and Utopia he states that in the presence of anarchy, protective associations would form in which groups of people would protect one another for personal protection and special interests. This seems good on paper but there are many possible problems with this. What if the different protective associations disagree on what our rights are. What if they have conflicts that result in violence. On top of that, there is no doubt that certain associations would rise to the top and gain control of territory and other groups. They themselves would become the new government. But instead of having a just democracy, they may establish a tyrannical dictatorship, replacing the problem with a new even worse one. Power has an eternal place in any society that has to be filled. It is human nature to not leave gaps in control. Therefore it is best to fill the gaps with the people.
Anarchy would not work for two main reasons.
Individual rights would not be able to be protected.
Considering everyone's desire to control, anarchy simply wouldn't last even if it was a good idea.
So if we have established that anarchy wouldn't work then what can we do instead? Going back to the book Anarchy, State and Utopia Robert Nozick makes the point that instead of anarchy we can do the next closet thing. An ultra-minimal government or a night-watchman state. In this case, the only government functions would be those meant to protect rights. So we would have police, military, and basic protective functions. The benefit to this is we would see a small government incapable of tyranny. Also low taxes and government interference. Every industry would be privatized (for example more companies like Space X and fewer programs like NASA).
Just like anarchy though, problems are suggested by some with an ultra-minimal state. Progressives in favor of a large federal government would lose many of the ideas they wish to see in the governing body. Ronald Dworkin makes the point that in Nozick's watchman state people have no right to assistance when in desperate need of help.
One may also wonder why we necessarily even need a government to fill the gap of power and protect our rights. Why not privatize the military. We would see small contactable protective unions. The problem with this is we would see the same problem with anarchy. How would these unions agree on rights? What prevents them from becoming tyrannical?
Considering all this we know we would need a government so that the people can unify over one ruling force and set of laws. But how should it be run?
We have inalienable rights. Government has an inalienable purpose to protect those rights to the full extent. So I guess the remaining question is what about other human needs that the protection of our rights don't necessarily fulfill.
A possible theory of mine is this:
Under a democracy where our rights are protected there really is no need for further intervention to improve general welfare since everyone has the opportunity to do whatever they want (with enough work). But if government assistance is needed it should be achieved without giving any extra power to the government and all in the name of the people (no special interest).
In conclusion, my answer to the question anarchy good or bad I would say bad, but certainly an interesting concept.
