Who makes the decisions in an anarchy?

Answer 1

Well, since Anarchy is a language orgin of both English and Greek, it is known as 'avapxia' or 'anarchia.' The four countries with the longest anarchy are Belgium, Afghanistan, Netherlands, and Cote D'lvoire. In Greek, anarchy, or avapxia, or anarchia means without ruler. So, if there is no ruler in that nation, that means nobody has the power. But, besides Belgium, Afghanistan, Netherlands, and Cote D'lvoire, there are other countries with an anarchy.

Answer 2

No one: By definition Anarchy is the removal of order. Confusion reigns, there is no control, nothing is regulated. Anarchists set out to destroy what is there, yes, it creates change, but they have no interest in the re establishment of control. ---- Anarchy; can only exist in a Spiritual reality; the vanity; greed; and fear of The Carnal, blinding them; causes them to be incapable of communal living, without blind leaders. Way of Tao #3 If you over esteem great men,

people become powerless.

If you over value possessions,

people begin to steal. And Yet, Another Answer: As is often the case with words and language, the use of such words can be confusing and misleading. Many definitions of words will un-apologetically offer conflicting definitions. The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary offers these definitions for the word Anarchy: Anarchy: 1. a) Absence of government. b.) A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the lack of governmental authority. c.) A Utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

2.) absence of order: DISORDER. The first definition offered, which is an absence of government, is perhaps the clearest definition offered. Any government, by definition, is a governing body that imposes legislation, (presumably as a means to put justice in), rules and regulations upon the governed. Even in a government created by consent of the governed, (which is somewhat redundant as even those ruled by tyrants do so by consent, if not willful consent then tacit consent by their lack of resistance.), is a populace that is subject to that government. An absence of government then would mean the populace is subject to no one but their own will.

The second definition offered in number 1, which is a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the lack of government authority presupposes that governmental authority inherently possesses political order and governs lawfully. If this definition were true it would greatly undermine the principles put forth in such documents as The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights among others. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and even The Universal Declaration of Human Rights rely upon common law principles established since time immemorial and the acceptance of natural rights of individuals. Based on these principles, any lack of governmental authority should not be assumed to be a state of lawlessness and any governmental authority that does exist should not be granted the respect of political order unless that authority actually does behave with political order. Before addressing the third definition offered in number 1 of Webster's dictionary it should be noted that the notion of anarchy being a state of lawlessness after the collapse of a state is an idea usually promulgated by government officials. It would make sense that those who govern would view a collapse of that government as a state of lawlessness or political disorder. Ironically, it usually because of political disorder and lawlessness that a state collapses. Those who govern tend to willfully show a great disregard for the populace they presume to govern. A presumption of ignorance of the people is taken and indeed encouraged. While it is a common law principle that all people are presumed to know the law, those who govern hold a different view, if not officially then personally. In the United States ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet many governmental authorities of that land will insist that the average person has no business interpreting their laws and, at the very least, will imply that interpretation of law is better left to licensed lawyers and judges. If ignorance of the law is indeed no excuse then interpretation of that law becomes necessary. Relying upon others to interpret that law for you will not protect you against any misinterpretation and as such it is always best that every individual carefully read the legislation passed and interpret that legislation for themselves.

Moving on to the third definition offered by Webster's in number 1, the definition offered, which is an Utopian society where individuals enjoy complete freedom without government is so confusing and contradictory one can't help but wonder how woefully little lexicographers must make as a well paid lexicographer should be expected to do better than this. Webster's own definition of Utopian offers this: Utopian: 1. Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a Utopia; especially; having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization.

2. Proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes. 3. Impossibly ideal: VISIONARY 4. Believing in or advocating or having the characteristics of Utopian socialism. Without spending too much time analyzing the definitions of Utopian it should be noted that the impracticality or impossibility of ideals is the operative key. The irony of that, is in the definition of ideals, and without going into the numerous definitions Webster's offers for that word, ideals are ideas mostly reduced to fancy or imagination only. An ideal is inherently unobtainable and if it is to be obtained it would then, by definition, cease to be an ideal and necessarily become a part of reality. To define Utopian as an impracticality or impossibility of ideals is akin to memos that come from the department of redundancy department. Any definition that offers words that in return require defining is a useless definition as it should be presumed that the purpose of dictionaries is to clear up any confusion of a word and not add to that confusion.

Thus, the third definition offered in number 1 of the word anarchy, is nothing more than Propaganda advocating order and freedom by way of government. It is a great irony in the march towards freedom of the individual that we as a people seem to loathe the idea of undoing the chains and shackles of government and instead place our own freedoms and the responsibility for it in the hands of governing bodies. As sophisticated as we may claim to be in this so-called age of information, we seem to remain stubbornly naive in the belief that governments will act benignly and will not overstep their jurisdictional authority. Any one who has ever read and understands what Karl Marx is promulgating in his lengthy tome Das Kapital, a socialist Utopia, or rather a communist Utopia, which would be a "true" freedom of the masses, can only be gained by first surrendering ones freedom to the state so that the state may then create the ideal situation which would create that states own obsolescence. Such a belief is the epitome of naivete. Outside of socialist Utopias, the idea that living free without the interference of government is not an ideal and therefore not Utopian in its notion. Governments should be, and often are, formed to better secure the rights and freedom of the individual. It is not an arbitrary or contradictory belief to hold that what an individual can do to secure rights and freedom, a group of individuals can do better and more effectively. This does not always hold true but the flaw is not in the idea of government but inherent in the ambitions of those who would govern. Yet, no matter how well meaning and how ethical a government would be, to effectively accomplish the task set before them, that government is often faced with choices that often lead to an expansion of the government. Any expansion of government directly leads to less freedom for the individual, if for no other reason that expansion requires more taxation. Taxes, no matter how necessary they may be to keep the wheels of justice, social tranquility, defense and general welfare operative, are a necessary intrusion on the freedoms of the individual if there is to be a government at all.

This answer does not seek to advocate anarchy nor any absence of government any more than it seeks to advocate any form of government. It is the hope and effort of this answer to clear up any confusion in regards to the term anarchy. If we as individuals are presumed to know the law, then any attempt at understanding that law requires an understanding of words. If we accept any definition at face value we only devalue our own understanding of the word. If we surrender our own right to understand the meaning of a word we have necessarily agreed to being less than those who seek to define the word for us. The great "confusion of tongues" that has existed in our civilizations since the time of Babel has only kept us from obtaining the freedom that so rightfully belongs to us as individuals. Words, are too often, lumbering, cumbersome, weights of bondage that seemingly have no motive other than adding to confusion. For this answer, the irony of such an assertion is not lost as this answer has relied heavily upon words in order to make words clear. Yet, that only strengthens this argument rather than undermine it. That being said, let's take a look at the final definition of the word anarchy. Number 2 of Webster's definition of anarchy, which is an absence of order or disorder, is an amusing rejection of all the prior definitions offered before it. The lexicographers of Webster's dictionary seem to believe that anarchy is either this or it could be that and in fairness to lexicography and dictionaries, there does see to be an attempt to define words as they have come to exist in modern times while acknowledging the etymology of these words and their root meaning. This is the great contradiction of dictionaries, that they seek to define words to clear up confusion and yet endeavor to keep pace with the evolution a world will take in spite of that confusion. Dictionaries can only act as a guide to better usage of a word. It is, in the end, you and I who are on the journey and what any guide might have to offer, that journey must be taken by us. In the journey towards freedom, any word that is offered as vilification of an idea should be considered suspect. Any definition offered that seeks to, on the one hand clarify and on the other hand confuse, should be rejected and a better usage then would come from using your own heart as a guide and forget the confusion.

So, now that all this time has been spent clearing up words, let's get to the question at hand. Who has the ultimate power in anarchy? The same who hold ultimate power in any form of government. You have the ultimate power to act on your own free will regardless of what legislation, what enforcement of such legislation and what imprisonment your own actions may bring. How free can people be if they act against their own free will just to avoid imprisonment? This is not to say that acting with free will excuses the willful disregard for others to act freely. The notion of a state of disorder is a human concept as the universe will continue to move in the same orderly fashion it always has regardless of our attempts at creating chaos. Any perceptions of a universe in chaos is merely a projection of our own chaotic understanding of the universe. Natural disasters may seem to bring about chaos but that is only because they tend to disrupt our own attempts at order. It is not in establishing order that we as people have power, but rather, in understanding the natural order and our own place in it that we then begin to use that power to achieve a greater good. It is, in the end, what all of us, indeed what all things aim for, the greater good.

Answer 3

No one, that's why it is called anarchy. It is survival of the fittest. There are no rulers, no laws, and everyone is on their own.

Answer 4

the power in anarchy belongs to the people.

Answer 5

Absolutely no one.

Answer 6

no one