Is it hypocritical that I consider myself pretty much an anarchist...?

Question

And yet, if given the opportunity to hold lots of power (like rule a nation or something) I would probably take it? That question aside, do you think that some laws could actually give individuals *more* power? In America now (this may be oversimplifying it, but) the Senate and the House of Representatives would vote on an issue, (for a silly, non-controversial example, just to simplify things): whether selling popcorn should be legal. And citizens will vote for their Senators and Representatives. So the people have more power? Or would the people have more power, as individuals (in the case of that particular issue), if there was one person who could say: everyone can sell popcorn if they want? (Substitute in the issues of g*y Marriage, Abortion, Prostitution, Drugs, Suicide, whatever.) To make it even simpler, consider a direct democracy as in ancient Greece, where people would all vote on everything by casting a black or white stone. Do the people of Greece have more power

Answer 1

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule.  One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner".  See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them.  This includes protecting other peoples' lives, for example, whether it's from government or non-government forces.