Hrm...well, that's certainly a more representative society than many traditional models, but I wouldn't call it "anarchy."

Anarchy means somebody could kidnap and kill my child and the only recourse I have is to hunt down the killer hopefully not getting killed myself. I'll take a tyrannical government with a law enforcement system over wild-west justice any day.

Someone else explained anarchy as this particular concept, not as many would believe it is just pure chaos with a bunch of Molotov cocktails flying around. Still, I don't believe it's a better alternative and personally don't believe it would succeed in the long run.

It's closer in form to traditional anarchist economic ideals and shows how their political structure would function as a parallel to their economic structure.

If a large scale movement of anarchy happened I truly believe there would be tons of chaos.

I think these words by Tywin in A Song of Ice and Fire are more than apt: 'No man is free. Only children and fools think elsewise.'

No matter how many governments you topple, kings you kill and dictatorships you destroy, you will never be free. Freedom is an illusion people tell themselves, but in truth we are always bound to a higher power in this world. Let's say the world was entirely an Anarchy and thus, no laws. A clan of bandits and thugs makes you and yours pay monthly a 'protection fee'. You are not free, you are living on their time, not yours. No matter what governments exist, from US Democracy to North Korean rule, an established authority is important, without it the world is plunged into lawless chaos. Utopian anarchy can only exist in small remote enclaves because you know everyone, their motives and their personalities. Plunge a city like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York, Chicago or Washington D.C. and you'll bargained for when you asked for your precious anarchy.

An organised society is a structured society and in order to force your order, one must have the muscle enforce it. Are taxes stupid to the common man? Yes. But ask yourself this, is it worth paying an over leadership at the beginning of a year to help keep you sleeping safe at night knowing you're not as likely to take a bullet in your sleep as you would in a world plunged in anarchy? Yes.

Anarchy is not 'everyone is animals' but it's social Darwinism at its highest, only those with the strength to back themselves can truly survive without fear. The decent will try to hide, or be bullied when stronger more vicious animals come around.

Voted as an anarchist who thinks anarchy is bad for the lulz. I'm not actually an anarchist.

Sure, but based on the OP's comments that kind of society would still have too many rules imposed. The only real difference is in structure and degree of representation, right? In practice there are still rules insofar as robbery, murder, ownership of property, etc. They're just coming from a more granular form of governance with origins that are closer to the individual.

Isn't that the point of collectivism? People can join together to maintain themselves without worrying about tyrants. Anarchism isn't usually suggested as a civilisation without law, only one without control. Anarchist legal philosophy usually only restricts things that infringe upon the freedom of others. People would still be able to collectively establish laws and a system to punish those who infringe those laws. Bandits and thugs would be dealt with by an anarchist society in much the same way they always have been.

Anarchism isn't an absence of structure. It's an absence of coercion.

If that's the case, then the OP's grasp of anarchist theory is limited.

I was pretty much agreeing and just elaborating further. I wasn't contesting what you said.

Borg made a typo. Looks like you need to assimilate auto-correct.

How does that work in a very large society, though? How do you attempt to fairly represent hundreds of millions of people in a way that's manageable? What does one do if/when they're born into a set of rules (albeit formed in the absence of tyranny) with which they don't agree? Leave? Is that not a form of coercion?

No argument here. A society without any sort of collective contract regarding policies and rules quickly falls apart when it consists of a number of people higher than one.

You mean like the 'anarchists' that started the riots at the G20 meetings, then when they got beat up by the riot police, they demanded a government inquiry into police brutality?

The irony was palpable.

That seems redundant then to complain you're not free, demand a free society, then said society still has rules. I'm more a Libertarian at heart, with obviously pro-capitalism leanings, but still. I just despise Anarchy because when I was younger, I always wanted that utopic dream, but then I grew up and realised most of the people I met who 'supported' anarchy wanted it to do things with zero consequence. To me, a singular figure ruling the people but giving the people the freedom to do as they will so long as it doesn't intervene with social order is the perfect society.

Unfortunately I think definition of anarchy has been lost to the "[censored] the system" guys.

In my defense, my brain implants have not been installed yet.

sigh...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

Have to admit to certain prejudices against self declared anarchists. Mainly because the one's I've come across have tended to be self centred oiks who have read something about property being theft therefore feel it's OK to walk off with your belongings. Gits.

As long as that person agrees with everything you want, hmm? That's why we don't have any absolute monarchies in functioning free countries. The temptation and ability to oppress and enslave is too great. Anarchism aims to remove that danger by removing the coercive elements of a hierarchical society.

Completely unrestricted freedom, in most philosophical contexts, is not usually seen as a good idea. Most philosophers have observed the need for limits on freedom when someone else's freedom infringes on your own, and anarchism is usually no different from that.

No to anarchy. The 99% shouldn't be allowed to be completely free on the basis that our planet has limited resources. Human vice always interferes and your newly freed 99% will turn into a lovely pile of dead 99% as we abuse said resources in the name of greed, pride, ego, and plain stupidity. I'm sorry but a good portion of humanity lacks intelligence.

That being said, I argue that a small, contained healthy dose of anarchy is necessary to stop the governing system of society from succumbing to the same vice mentioned above.

You're right. We should continue to leave the abuse of resources, greed, pride, and ego to the 1% to whom those things currently belong.

Separate thought: ice cream for dinner, everyone!!!