Does anarchy agree with universal free education and medicine?

Anarchy, is just a pre adolescent dream world of a perpetual no parents around sleepover. I think.

This is a very good question, Hartfire! As anarchy is the belief that there should be no goverment, what would happen to those things that most reasonable people would say are essential services that the government should provide, such as education and health care, and we could add things such as fire and rescue services. I don't really know the answer, but I would suggest that anarchists would not want the world to be without such things. I guess this is why, although I don't have much faith in any of the political parties, I do not consider myself an anarchist.

I thought so too, until someone pointed me to a site that shows anarchy advocates small-scale local syndication and self-government, a form of democracy without big government.

It provoked lots of questions for me and I know there are quite a few anarchists on aM - so I'm hoping they'll come to this party to share their views.

You are talking nonsense. Learn what the words mean and try to compose something better. This happens when you are so steeped in public education that you can't even comprehend any other system.

Here are a book and an essay to help you understand:
The Lost Tools of Learning http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
The Underground History Of Public Education http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-uhae-1.html

Another eye opening piece is "Dress For Success" by John Molloy. He has a lot of advice for students, and it has no resemblance to guidance you get from school counselors:
1. Vocal skill will affect your earning power more than any other single detail.
2. Acting skill will get you a job offer even if you are not qualified for the job.
3. The most important thing you get from your college years is your address book.
4. The main difference between a successful man and a very successful man is the latter knows hundreds more people, and he knows them quite well.

Plan your schooling accordingly.

A whole series of questions will follow in the next few days on the same theme as I think about it.

If anarchists - since they place high values on education - organised local schools run by parents and workers, a difficulty could arise as to whether the syllabus was broad and flexible enough to allow grown children to move and adapt to conditions elsewhere if they wished (a prerequisite of freedom of choice.) There would need to be agreements on essential skills and subjects. So would there be syndicates of the syndicates, forming specialised departments of meta-governance without actually being sovereign states?

Here in Australia, most fire departments are locally organised. There's no shortage of volunteers, expert training (the "fireys" are considered among the best in the world and have been invited to the States to help you guys with your wildfires) and generous donations at fundraisers. This is partly because we're a very fire prone country, increasingly so with global warming. Everyone knows how vital they are to protecting lives and homes. The fireys get great kudos - hero worship even. But the state and federal governments do chip in with a lot of the expensive equipment like specialized trucks and helicopters.

So anarchists would definitely need a means to meet the heavy duty costs.

Thanks for adding those good points, HarryDemon.

Jules, Just before posting my question, I had been reading anarchist sites on how they define themselves, also the wikipedia summary of variations in definitions, listening to a lot of Noam Chomsky and purchasing some of his books.

I certainly will look up the references you posted here. Thank you for them.

If I am talking nonsense, which is highly likely since I'm a beginner in reading about this sub-branch of political theory, I would greatly appreciate it if you would give me the definitions for the key words which I have misused or misunderstood. I can and will look them up. However, this is a place for discussions, so offering definitions is helpful not just to me, but possibly also to some others.

As for your 4 points of advice, I'm not too bad with dress, speech or even acting if need be, but I am not gregarious by nature. I am introverted and extremely shy of new people in real life. I can handle a classroom full of any age group, but put me at a party where I know no one and all I want to to do is run away. But the kind of "success" implied by Malloy is something I've never wanted. I've always been happier making things, reading, writing, or being in and around nature and natural things. Success to me is just having enough to live, have a few friends and be healthy.

I know there's quite a few that propose no government. Now how big is is this self local syndication governation? When does it eventually become too big?

What happens when you start adding people to keep order ( police ), and education, ( schools ), and eventually the anarchists across the pond are going to want some of my stuff and my women, so I'm going to need a group of tough men you guard my stuff and my women.(Army)

The world already tried that when it started, when there was no government. . .

Man is not civilised enough for Anarchy.

Our inability to implement and maintain a progressive and fair form of government, does not negate our need for it. 

Anarchists are children that want no parents around because parents are poopoo heads and they have poopy rules. That's the extent of their philosophy.

You could have made the same point without the personal attack. Regardless of her leanings towards anarchy, Ms H is a very intelligent person capable of carrying out any conversation without this kind of bullshitery. How bout trying to respond with some kind of respect and class, Jewel

This is exactly, right here, why Anarchy wouldn't work.

...

That is what we (in the US) Libertarians profess.

Hello h:

Anarchy is the ABSENCE of government..  To read that "anarchists" advocate SMALL-scale local syndication and self-government, tells me that that they're NOT anarchists at all..  They're SMALL government advocates, just like ME..  And, as long as these small government syndicates OBEY the Constitution, they can REMAIN small.  But, you and I BOTH know the reasons they want self government in the first place, is BECAUSE they don't wanna obey the Constitution.

In any case, whatever government structure is in place, people, in their OWN interest, will provide healthcare and education to its constituents, and they'll find a way to pay for it..

excon

Thanks for the helping hand, Harry.

I think Mr. Jules Vern may have taken a dislike towards me somewhere along the track recently. It's possible he thinks that I am an anarchist because of my question, whereas

It's possible he thinks that I am an anarchist because of my question, whereas

in fact I'm more of a somewhat left liberal, with a leaning towards freedom restrained by responsibility, empathy, love and the ethic of avoiding causing harm - who just happens to be researching and questioning anarchy at the moment.

I have no objection to disagreements, but I would love him to become aware of the means of arguing without making personal attacks. I can handle it because I have no emotional attachments in this case, but if he consistently did the same elsewhere he could be offending against the agreements for this site.

I am hoping he will engage with me directly at some point so that we can sort out our differences, whatever they might be.

You're probably right, excon.

A lot of the stuff I'm reading seems to hinge on self-definitions. Anarchists seem to have a great many sub-classifications of political theory, and cross-overs with very diverse beliefs systems. The academic treatises on the subject seem to be agreeing that the ideal is no government, but since that's not possible, the next best thing is the minimum government necessary with as much freedom of diversity and choice as possible.

I can see how it's attractive,

and yet having grown up in a country which once had great social services, which are now slowly being undermined - I am seeing what happens when people can't afford a decent education, or medicine when they need it, and

I don't like what I see.

Another thing that bothers me is that the current parties that support minimal governance are the same parties which support big business and give them the right behave in highly destructive ways towards workers, monetary systems & circulation, and the environment. And so long as those parties support big business's access to endless growth, tax avoidance, and profiteering - then I can't support them.

So right now, I'm one big conundrum of cognitive dissonance. I don't know whether I'm Arthur or Martha ;)

Mmmm. The more I think about it, the more I am in complete agreement, Mr Potter.

LOL! :D

You could be right - although I wouldn't want to make assumptions without getting to know each person.

I think some of them are intellectuals with highly sophisticated approaches, starting from some of the students of Marx.

But I wouldn't be surprised if what attracts people to extremely individualistic forms of anarchy might be a reaction to overly disciplinarian parents.

When psychologists studied the followers of Osho/Bagwan, who taught "do whatever you like but be prepared to accept the consequences," they discovered that all of them had reacted away from oppressively authoritarian and rigid families.

Thank you, Element! :)

It was exactly people like you whom I hoped to attract answers from - so that we can all realise it.

There is indeed a leftist branch of anarchy, the largest of all groups of anarchists, who hold education as the single most important social good, and who support a libertarian ethic in government.

As was true of me only a few days ago, it seems very few people know what anarchy really is, or how diverse its variants are.