I think that in principle you speak with a noble mind and with noble concerns. The problem of life is perhaps, but not exclusively, the problem of evil. Evil exists and many humans, if not evil per se, for it's own sake, have the propensity for evil - when needs must. Anarchy automatically breeds a situation of "needs must..!" Why? The chaos produced by anarchy means that nothing is guaranteed except through strength. To be stronger - thinking from the stance of Nietzshce - man has to be more evil. Perhaps that is too direct an interpretation - in the broadest concept - of what we are discussing, but the moral imperative for many is to survive. We would be shocked at the lengths to which they would go to, just to survive, and if others have to lose out or suffer then that would be the last consideration. Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" is, of course, very well known, and even in organised civilized and governed society, people are driven to desperate criminal actions to meet those needs. How much further would they be prepared to go in a world of self rule? Think of a world of no cops, no law, no statutory consequences for one's actions! Furthermore, the world of the strong would be exhausting, even for the most strong, because all would be in continuous conflict for the most essential things. Therefore, I propose that if anarchy were the initial situation at the end of government, then organised crime would be the new form of government after only a short time.

I have to say that you raise some strong points there! Yes, the police are not very good at what they do and it seems they exist not to solve crime. As you point out, it should be their job to solve crime, so why are they so reluctant to do so? There's much more that could be said. The vulnerable are the worst off, but I believe that their situation would be no better under anarchy! There's no doubt about it, that anarchy is the law of the strong, and the strong would rule the weak. This is of course the natural order, but nobody wants it- they prefer the comfort of civilization!

Everyone is different! I think I could be happy being a law unto myself, perhaps living in a nice self sufficient wilderness environment, but would I be happy taking orders, or complying through fear with stronger neighbours? My ideal then, stems from idealism - wouldn't it be nice - but reality has a nasty habit of cropping up and spoiling things. Robinson Crusoe was famously terrified, after his years of isolation, when he discovered human footprints in the sand!! Humans mean trouble! Humans often kill other humans or they commit other crimes. Civilisation has sought to bring order and security, but often things fall into decline. That is where we are today - in decline. That makes people fearful and it makes people question whether some other way would be better. Perhaps another way would be better, but it needs consensus and it can't just rely on presumption and good will. Anarchy can work for the individual and I think any belief system can work for an individual and their preference of lifestyle (Freedom of choice is important), but things get much more complicated when other people are involved!

I agree, but people would still need to work together and that means hierarchy. It means there have to be bosses and that means that an ownership class would emerge and quickly. I think the initial vitality of an anarchistic situation or opportunity would be exciting and groups of people would try to cooperate along these principles, but human nature is such that this would break down. An archistic society is a fascinating concept but from a practical point of view it would be going back to the drawing board and starting again from scratch - we would then go through the painful process - a sort of MadMax movie!! -before arriving where we already are, with government. Why would the people become statists and form governments? For all of the obvious reasons: to protect ownership;to secure entitlement; to guarantee safety, etc.

Yes, I agree. The choice is pragmatic if not ideal. We all want more liberty and freedom but unfortunately it comes at a price. That price - as unfair as it seems - must be paid because the alternative (anarchy) comes with absolutely no guarantees, and without some form of stability there can be no planning and no law - there can be no certainty insofar as we - as mere mortals - are able to predict! The tried and tested can be tweaked and made better, even if it is a difficult task in the face of so many obstacles. Anarchy is the unknown - and I envisage something like the 15th and 16th century clan wars in Scotland and Ireland. Consequently, at best it is the realm of ideas, ideals and unproven philosophy (by my definition: ideology). How many people delve into any sphere of the unknown with an attitude of hope and expectation of "This could work" only to be sorely - and quite literally sometimes - disappointed? The world is a terrible place and humanity is sometimes deplorable but we should stick with it as best we can. Things an only get better - or worse - but that's life!!

This is a powerful point. For our sense of security we would organise into small groups with hierarchy. These groups would compete for resources and all anarchy would break out in the most basic sense of the term "anarchy". What we are actually looking at is the law of the strongest. This would be a truly Darwinian survival of the fittest situation. Is that in line with our more lofty ideas about anarchy? Ideology and reality rarely meet, and when they do it is never to anyone's long term benefit. It all goes wrong.Think about everything that the mainstream is pushing at the moment - where's the facts? We need to simplify life - just to "live" and to "be" should be enough, but sadly it isn't in the current phase - it is serious stuff indeed, just to survive the urban jungle that they call civilization!! Poverty and homelessness are a heartbeat away with one wrong word, one wrong tweet!!! There's no doubt about it that some people are so frustrated that they would prefer anarchy - even it's worst manifestations - but for how long? Fending off attackers and bullies all your life, until you eventually die defending basic requirements for comfortable living. The very things that other groups - organised under anarchistic chieftains - seek to take from you, because they do not have those things themselves. Lofty ideals of living in peace and sharing are not proven to be part of reality - it's the stuff of our dreams!

Yes, I am sympathetic to your view in relation to the use of violence and power. The state has the power to threaten,to sanction, and where it deems it necessar,y to enforce compliance through violence. It is certainly far from the ideal utopia. I am in agreement with much of what you have to say. However, the bigger picture has to be based on more than just trust. We trust that others will respect us and not use violence against us because they must surely share the same understanding of values and principles!! Some of the other comments allude to this problem as well.

There are tyrants in this world who feel entitled to take from others what they want. They seek to rule by fear and intimidation. You could argue that the worst of government does precisely this in certain parts of the world - history also shows this to be true. However, imagine a world of totally unrestrained anarchy in all of it's diverse anarchistic interpretation, all of these anarchists competing for the same wealth and resources - surely the nicer and more liberal anarchists are going to be the poorer and the more selfish and brutal anarchists would be the stronger and the wealthier. As we see in nature, there is a tendency for the stronger to dominate and to exploit the weaker - the hunter and the hunted! This itself is a moral argument, but it is only with agreed restraint and government authority that the weak stand any chance at all, when threatened by tyranny.

The virtue of anarchy is a very difficult topic to debate. It's exciting, fresh and full of unknown potential, but I think it's possibly too idealistic to work in practice. There is a lack of consensus on what anarchy actually is and how it would/should be applied. This problem is compounded by human nature; human need and greed, would certainly create enormous problems and I'm not sure anyone would really know how to find a solution - it would be a period of trial and error. A sort of wild west!!

I think that anarchy is misunderstood in the political context, or at the very least there is no consensus of opinion or definition. From the philosophical perspective, the spirit of anarchy is certainly possible as part of ones own life, but I think the problem emerges when it applies to the world at large. The best ideas seem to be syndicalism and voluntaryism. If I belong to some kind of cooperative, if I have made a contract, then my anarchistic tendency to do as I please is -for the term of the contract - bound over to the common good or to the demands of the paymaster! However, this can have problems of it's own, for example, there is no clause that enables you to end the contract. Anarchy is exciting and liberating, but it also means that our problems begin all over again. If the current system of governance is completely broken and beyond repair - and I often feel that it is - then what have we got to replace it? Anarcho-capitalism is one approach, but there is no inherent means of making a level playing field and all the money would end up in too few hands in a very short time! So much can be said in this discussion, but there needs to be a lot of research to devise a plan that could work for everyone.