ZeroTails :
Now, I may be young, but I put a lot of thought in to politics. I don't believe that say, anarchy is good for a country, but I still like to think, "What if it was anarchist here, there would be a few good things about that." Same thing with communism and all that other stuff. I like to always be thinking, what if we lived like this? Do you guys do this much?

I don't really think about politics all that much. I think the main reason is because I'm still a bit young, and I don't fully understand politics. I'm actually just now getting into it in my class at school, so hopefully this will help me understand it better. I know a couple of things about politics, but not much. Also, why did you summon Zero?

LunarDarkness2 : To be honest, that was a mistake. I meant to do it for another post, oops. I believe that I have the moral right, no, obligation! To think about all the other paths to help my country.

I'm a little confused with this thread... Are you wanting to discuss Anarchy, or freedom of thought, or thinking about politics... ? 

It seems that you didn't organize your thoughts clearly enough. 

I really don't think Anarchy is a type of government, since it means, no rule. 

You can't change what someone thinks, but you can make them so busy that they don't have time to think. i.e You can make them work so much that by the time they can go home, they no longer want to think, just sleep. 

Thinking about politics is essential now-a-days. If you don't, then the government will take everything you have. The government grows, when people don't think about what's going on. So, we should always be thinking about what is passing through the legislation, what person is up for election, and who is doing what. That is one thing that will keep the government from taking all our freedoms.

darthyoda : Correction: anarchy means no ruler. No rules is chaos.

You see anarchy all around you, i.e. when something is not directly under government control like bitcoins, farmers' market or even marble/hockey card trading amongst kids. While some of these activities involve government regulation, they are not micromanaged like, say, road building or education yielding *some* anarchy.

Also, even for the very busy businessman of cardiac surgeon their actions show some anarchy. THEY decide to work those long hours; nobody (I hope) forces them to do it, showing they do have freedom of thought. They don't follow the 9-to-5 bureaucratic model favored by governments.

Finally, people not caring about politics (like not voting) just shows that their interest lies elsewhere. With the present size of government voting is a farce; politicians usually get elected because they are corrup... er lobbied by the right people and can get reelected thanks to all the money they get.

I do, actually. I'm not all that active in politics in real life, but I find myself wondering 'what if' a lot. Part of it, I think, has to do with a book I'm co-writing. One of the main characters that I am 'in charge' of developing is a politician who kind of got thrust into her role, and she's having to learn how to politick on the fly while maintaining her integrity and doing what she was trying to do before she got this position. As a result, so am I (learning stuff on the fly, that is).  

Since this character lives in a LITERAL world-wide commonwealth, things are a bit different from how they are here in the United States, so I have to do a LOT of research as well...but it opens up the 'what ifs' for me a lot, too. What if the US operated like this? Or like this? Etc. It opens your eyes a bit. 

janus: In essence, no rule and no ruler are the same. If no one makes the rules, no one can have rules... You can't have rules without someone in charge making them... And, by definition, anarchy is chaos, disorder and destruction... 
Anarchy (ˈanəki) : noun 
1) A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
2) Absence of Government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

The second one would be a literal utopia without anyone ruling, no police, no government.... That will never happen, as people always want more, even if they need to take it. That's why rules are there... If it weren't for the rules set by the government, it would be utter chaos. I haven't seen the movie, but the movie The Purge makes a good point. If you allow crime to happen, what will stop someone from doing it? If you allow people to do crime (Have no person setting the rules/ruler) then there will be crime, only it will be constant. 

janus :  "While some of these activities involve government regulation.."

Stop right there.  That means anarchy doesn't exist.  People bartering at a farmers' market is capitalism, not anarchy.  Just because the price change doesn't mean anarchy rules.  The dollars have a fixed value as backed by either gold or the 'good trust of the American people,' the roads constructed to get farmers to their selling locations were build by tax dollars and maintained by government entities.... I could go on and on.

Simply using currency bring government into the picture, hence "not anarchy."

Also, the market drives those surgeons to work more to get more money.  They can work 9-5 if they want but they won't pay off their student loans, usually funded by either government entities or groups working under federal regulation to loan money.  How do these institutions have the funds to pay for medical school?  Banks or other loaning vehicles, backed by federal regulations so people can all bring their money together in investment.  Hospitals, universities (public or private), and the infrastructure made possible all comes from government regulation.

True anarchy would probably lead to a small, simple agrarian society where nothing happens.  We wouldn't have the internet or any other amenities because it's not in anyone's interest to develop something like that.  How do you barter for a car?

It's all capitalism.  Nothing you mentioned was anarchy.

warmaker : Anarchy is anything where the government is not involved. Communism is were everyone gets the same amount of money. Totally different thing. Anarcho-capitalism exists, anarcho-communism is impossible and ridiculous.

darthyoda: No it's not the same.

First, if you take the word anarchy from it literal Greek meaning (an/arkos), it does mean no ruler.
Monarchy: one ruler
Democracy: rule of the people
Oligarchy: rule of the few
Plutocracy: rule of the wealthy

I admit that it did end up meaning no order, but it's still a misnomer. There is this concept called "spontaneous order" where things "simply" appear without having any central direction. Agriculture, the wheel, mathematics, writing, language, etc., all appeared and evolved without central planning. Compare that to Esperanto, a language that was completely invented and never took off...

Without having been "without government", the United States until the 20th century did pretty well without massive state intervention. Roads were being built privately, private education increased literacy rate (among the white population, granted) to over 90 percent before public schooling took off in the 1850s and private transportation was much superior that government-favored railroads that were rife with corruption and inefficiencies. The supposed robber barons likes Rockefeller never, ever used coercion to surpass their competitors. True, they lowered their prices... because they were much more efficient. Just imagine for a second what the fossil fuel industry would have looked like if Washington had decided to take it over in the 1860s...

But then I am not a practical anarchist. I still believe government serves a purpose: public security and justice. Of course, I would still defend Second Amendment should government reverts to such a small size since one has the right to defend one's life against the initiation of aggression.

warmaker "pure" capitalism is simply a nicer name than anarchy. It is voluntary exchange between two or more consenting parties. "pure" anarchy believes that everything in society can be done without coercion.

Money is another example of the "spontaneous order" I wrote about earlier. No authority ever invented money; rather it came through trial an error from the actions of people. Having government in control of money is what corrupted it and prompted inflation. It's also one of the main causes of the downfall of the Roman Empire; emperors constantly debased coins and made it a crime to "overcharge".

Still about money, banks can work well without regulation. Don't forget that, for about 150 years banks couldn't branch out of their state of incorporation. They therefore couldn't spread the risk and defaulted regularly - states imposing the purchase of their bonds or keeping "wildcat banks" from honoring their promissory notes did not help. Compare that to Canada, who had only three banks defaulting in its modern history, none of which happened during the Depression. They could merge and branch out.

You give government way too much importance. EVERYTHING you mentioned can be built privately and much more efficiently by the private sector. To give you a good examples: the new Highway 25 (between Montreal and Laval) was a public-private partnership and was built within delays and budget. The private business had a good interest in acting that way so it would start earning soon and maybe get other contracts later. In comparison, most wholly public infrastructure schemes (the Metro to Laval, the Turcot interchange, the new university hospitals in Montreal) take forever to build - if they even get started - and are ALWAYS running over because the public sector has no incentive to be careful with others' money.

Asking who would build the roads without government amounts to asking who will pick up cotton without slaves.

Finally, I disagree with your projection of a world without government. If you look at human history, the most wonderful periods of human improvement happened when government backed down (even just a little) and let people's minds run free. To quote a meme: Had government took over the car industry in 1910, we would still be driving Model T and people would say Without government, we wouldn't have cars." It's not so far-fetched; beyond the Iron Curtain, car models barely evolved compared to the "capitalist" world.

Once people realize that other humans are potential allies with whom they can freely and voluntarily collaborate to further their goals, you don't need any central planning to achieve such goals.

SilverHyruler gave a pretty good description of anarchy: no involvement of government.

To answer your question yes I have though maybe not that much about the specifics things you think mentioned (though I guess I've still thought about it a bit), I think about politics a lot in general, they've been a big interest of mine ever since I ended middle school (probably my biggest interest actually along with video games) I actually plan to work within politics once I become older.

Spending a lot of time on this site and in the debate forum (or just on the internet in general) among people who are mostly from north America while living in Sweden (and Swedish people on this seem to be pretty much non existent) has given me a different perspective on a lot of things since the things being discussed where I live and in the US can often be pretty different.

Either way it's something that can be useful to think about regardless if you work within politics or not since it's something that will affect you in many ways, and you play a part in through voting.

I don't think as much about politics as I used to. I think it's good to deeply think about it and challenge ones current views. That helped me create my current worldview, which makes a substantial impact on how I live my life.

At some point within the past few months, thinking about politics began to feel pointless. I might still enter a political discussion for fun or to hear someone's thoughts, but I can't rile up any emotions about it. If I'm wrong about something, I simply change my mind. If I'm right, that's cool. I was that way before, but I feel like I was driven by some idea of righteousness.

Now I think that no matter how righteous my political ideas are, there's virtually no chance of them being implemented, because our government is driven by people who simply want the money to be re-elected, there's rampant gerrymandering when it comes to state elections, and Congress is being bribed by lobbyists.

I guess I've just lost faith in the system. I knew these things before, but it never clicked.

Now I spend my time thinking about things that matter to me more directly.
I definitely think a lot...just about different things.

SilverHyruler : I think about politics on occasion, but not alot really, but I understand whee you're coming from. 

janus : Anarchy is Anarchy... It doesn't matter how good or bad. But if you think about it, who is making sure that no one rules? Someone has to be in charge to make sure that someone isn't in charge. Either that or you end up with a Democracy which would mean that there is a ruling body... Either way, Anarchy is only a political ideal, and not to be rude, but it depends on people being good. (Which I can assure you, they aren't.)
Anarchy: No Ruler/ No Ruling body
Democracy: Mob Rule
Republic: Elected body
Monarchy: Blood line of royalty
Oligarchy: Rule of the few (Rich, powerful, military etc.) 

Really, all of the systems that exists depend on someone being good... Even the combination of the ideas, such as a Republican Democracy (Democratic Republic, same thing.) That is why you have to have several parts which cannot work together to accomplish evil intentions. 

janus :

Agriculture has dangers if left unregulated. It's what caused the dust bowl. The government actually pays farming companies to do crop rotation and not plant. It subsides some things to make them more economical to grow and not others because we have an excess

But everything is spot on. Hamilton organized our economic system so that greed would stimulate the market. Capitalism works so well because people are so bad.

Txgangsta : The government wasn't helping early farmers... And, they managed the earth fine without needing regulation. 

The Bible clearly gives outlines for how to keep the earth healthy, and all of it was written years before the scientists "discovered" it. 

Leviticus 25:4:
https://www.vizzed.com/bible/passage.php?book=3&chapter=25&verse=4 

If that doesn't work... Then look it up on the Bible feature here... The book of Leviticus was written around the years 538–332 BCE
This is the edited version, which means that the original was written before that... The Bible is the oldest book around, so that would explain the age of it.

If you don't want to read the short verse, then just read this... It talks about a "Sabbath of the land" this means you leave the plot of land alone for a while... Every seven years. It's nothing new, and the farmers shouldn't depend on the government to tell them that. They should already know this, as it is part of their job.

darthyoda :

I'm not an atheist; why are you yelling at me about scientists? My comment is that farmers aren't doing crop rotation, regardless of faith. Government enforces that. And US law requires it every three years, else you don't get the subsidies.

darthyoda : What does God have to with any thing? Politics and Religion are different, bro.

Txgangsta : I wasn't saying you were an Atheist... I just think that if we followed the Bible, we wouldn't need to have the government enforcing something that farmers should do anyway... It benefits them to follow proper farming procedure. 

SilverHyruler : Belief has everything to do with what one believes. If I believe that the world will end tomorrow, I'll live the way I would want to spend my life... Religion has everything to do with what we do. Especially Politics. The Bible says that God puts rulers in place, and he is the one who removes them... So from my view, God has everything to do with it, even if we don't believe that it serves reason.