Arguments Against Anarchism

1389 Words6 Pages
Anarchism is the political theory that hierarchical order is unnecessary in society and that human beings can cooperate without such structures overseeing them. Anarchy as a political theory has potential but it fails to recognize that authority is a natural state. Reworking some terms of authority may be beneficial for a kinder, more humane government in the future, but eliminating all forms of authority is not realistic. In an ideal anarchist society, with cooperation between all humans, we could experience true freedom in the form of individual autonomy. We should look to anarchist ideals such as equality and freedom of expression for how we would like to see the future, but relying on the philosophy to govern our lives would not likely pan out well. Not every human at every point in life is capable of being personally ethical enough to create a society without hierarchy, therefore anarchy while admirable may not be practical. Existentialism comes from an individualistic belief that existence itself is freedom. Existentialist freedom is available to all at any time, but it comes with the price for accepting consequences of actions. Nothing must be done for anyone to become free under this philosophy beyond realizing that one always has a choice. Many choices are unpleasant to make, but an existentialist would say that they…show more content…
Anarchism does so from a legal standpoint, that each individual should be accountable for how they act in the freedom they have. On the other hand, existentialism focuses on individual responsibility as a basis for freedom. As existentialism affects individuals, it would be much easier to implement than anarchism which seeks widespread change. Alternatively, the concept of being free through taking responsibility for oneself is much more challenging than the concept of being free through overthrowing the
Open Document