Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
The oxford dictionary defines anarchism as "impression at the abolition of all government and the business of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to either force or compulsion." Thus, philosophical anarchism is a type of political doctrine that rejects all kinds of authority and hierarchy not only states or governments. However, there are a variety of problems with philosophical anarchism. Primarily, the most obvious argument is the impracticality, whereby folks want the state or a government to be able to survive. With the major assumption that without laws and regulations that there would be disorder and chaos. Secondly, it's claimed that human beings by character or socialisation are egocentric, uncooperative and lazy. Thus, the basis that philosophical anarchism is dependent on involvement means nothing would ever be attained and could lead to complete disorder. Paradoxically, the issue with abuse and crime. Anarchists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argue that 'property is theft!' Consequently, without land he believes that crime would just disappear. This doesn't provide a sufficient enough reason at the conclusion of offense and offers no form of punishment when crimes are perpetrated. Finally, the historical examples of 'anarchist communities' have all been met with violence and essentially the close of the society, by way of example, the Free Territory (1918-1921). In this essay I will argue that there are a number of issues with philosophical anarchism and that it's at best a review of the modern system (a philosophical condition) supplies no workable choice. The word anarchy comes from the Greek: an (without/the absence of) archos (ruler/chief/authority/leader.) Anarchists claim that societal stability is ach...