I would agree, that would make a much more competent government. Perhaps have a board or congress which is comprised of experts from all fields, including things like astronomy, agriculture and geology. That way there would be mainly educated people in power, and for every new legislation, there would be a member of the congress which would be able to explain the finer details to the members who aren't experts.

Anarchy would be good because, well, its fair. Wrong someone and you pay, no court or delays. It sounds good, but it doesnt work.

How is Anarchy fair? Whoever has the biggest gang, the most guns, or the most money is automatically the the one who gets to make all the decisions. Democracy isn't perfect but at least that way everyone gets to influence the government, even if it is by a very small degree. The difference between anarchy and government is that an ideal government ties itself down to prevent such abuses of power. The biggest gangs don't answer to anyone but those who have more power than them, and at the moment that is the government.

Anarchy is like the alternate 1985 you see in Back to the Future II, only probably even worse irl. That's not exactly a good comparison but you get what I mean. Gaining power by doing whatever it takes with no moral consequences doesn't exactly sound like an ideal way to live.

Its fair because, if you wrong someone, you pay. The same is for the gangs, you create a gang and you all have big guns and all that stuff, people can still take you down. But anarchy sooner or later turns back into democracy/dictatorship/communism.

So you think it's fair for me to go over to your house, kill your family, then not suffer any repercussions. Okay.

Anarchy isn't fair. It's the most ridiculously unfair system possible. Basically if anything bad happens you are fucked. Do you think it's realistic that if a town somewhere is taken over by a gang that one guy is going to kick them all out because they raped his daughter or beat his wife? He wouldn't have the ability! With a government, even a dictatorship, then those gangs would be driven out by the police, and if not them then by an army. The difference between gangs and government are that it's the government's JOB to protect its people. Gangs don't do that, they just want to advance themselves. The fact of the matter is, people are strong in groups, and Anarchy is a place for that to thrive. When your power is unmatched and not self-limited, then there are no consequences for your actions, and without retribution for your actions, there is no fairness. Anarchy is a horrible system and it's not fair at all. I do agree with you though that ultimately it will lead to government. Eventually someone is going to manage to take over. It'll be an autocracy ruled by a warlord, sure, but still a government.

But it'd also take a while for that to happen. Too many lives lost, as I'm sure the world learned the hard way. Anarchy wouldn't be an improvement, we'd be regressing rather than progressing.

I do the same to you. Then thats pretty fair IMO.

You're dead bro, you can't do anything to me.

You said: " kill your family " To me that is my parents and brothers/sisters.
but you really have a point with this whole killing thing.

Imagine the scenario (in todays society) that you come home and find your family dead, you see the killer run off and you take off after him, you catch him. You have a gun in your hand and a phone in the other. Would you rather call the cops and let them take care of it, or kill him on the spot?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'd disable him and call the cops.

That's not the point though, in anarchy there is no law. You can do whatever the hell you like with enough force, and punishment is based on personal bias. No one has any rights. Murder, slavery, abuse and genocide are perfectly fine as long as you are powerful enough. But what if you were born with a defect? You have no rights and are too weak to defend yourself, so you are therefore easy game for anyone to do as they please with you.

Not only that, but anarchy destroys technological and scientific advancement. I'd prefer to live in a world where I have individual rights, and can pursue happiness instead of living by the law of club and fang where the weak are dominated by the powerful and violence is the solution to all problems.

Ofcourse with enough power, you are unstoppable (and this is why we will never have anarchy) like you said disabled people are fucked, we go back in time (kind of) and there is noone to uphold laws and stuff. BUT! You will have freedom to do whatever you want to (like said, this can go to hell pretty fast), but if im not mistaken, they had anarchy in spain before the nazis came in and started shooting people, and it worked pretty good. I think they had a society where everyone got to vote about everything, there was no leaders, nor gangs. So yeah that worked for about 2 months, but then came the nazis (the evil gang in this case) and had weapons, tanks and all that. A peaceful community who had not armed themselves was fucked. This is the whole problem, if a group of people wants to live in peace, there is always someone who doesnt, and take advantage of this. (Im not 100% sure about this story but it was something similiar). Anarchy just wont work, its a nice thought but if you start discussing it, then there is just no way it would work. Gangs, vigilantes, slavers. Yeah its just too many damn problems.

The thing with both Laissez-faire capitalism and anarchy is: You expect people to act the way you predict.

Spain was a military Dictatorship during and before the war. It was also aligned with the Nazis, they never attacked Spain.

Personally I don't think that being able to do anything you want is good Anything that infringes on others rights is wrong and should be against the law.

The thing with both Laissez-faire capitalism and anarchy is: You expect people to act the way you predict.

I expect people to act just as they've always acted, violently. The difference is that there are consequences to actions in Laissez-faire capitalism, while Anarchy provides incentives for acting violently.

"You" meaning Laissez-faire capitalists and anarchists.

Every action has consequences, that's causality, which isn't affected by politics.

Anarchy doesn't provide incentives for violence, it provides no disincentives for violence.

Oh, well then I was thinking about something else.. Still, that system would be good.

Benevolent Consulted Tyranny with a Meritocratic succession selection process.

So basically, you have a sort of liberal libertarian dictator, with a handpicked cabinet of expert advisers (or a pool of them to call upon), and his successor is chosen and trained well in advance, by a merit-based system.

That's how I'd run things.

Same. Best form of government right there.

Never going to work - will turn into a closed oligarchy and end up in tears and blood, just like any other dictatorship.

Democracy is still the best form of government, even with its shortcomings of populism and short-termism. But all too often people forget that the true value of democracy is not how rulers get voted in but how they are voted *out*. Democracy is first and foremost a system where a failing government can be changed in an orderly process. And *any* government will fail if it stays in power long enough.

The problem with dictatorial governments is that when they fail they can still cling to power for a considerable period of time which leads to much greater disruption and cost (economical and human) when they are eventually replaced.

Regards