I agree with this 100%

[pegor]

I love this thread...
I think as soon as two people start to interact a power relationship is formed, and someone takes a dominate position. As the number of people interacting increases that structure starts to look like an organization or government. So there is really no such thing as Anarchy in the sense that everyone is equally empowered.

As Organizations grow, whether it is a government or a Union or a Business. The empowered start to focus on maintaining thier power, and loose site of the original mission of the Org. For this reason the best way to manage anything is to put the power closer to the people who feel the results of decisions. smaller government, and decentralized government is less likely to suffer from the money grubbing because people who feel the pain have a bigger role in selecting the empowered.

You still need a larger Org to provide for the common defense and promote well being of the environment etc... but, I think attempting to elect small government minded Reps is a better option than bloodshed.

[Märk]

Anarchy, in and of itself, is a contradiction. You fight against the establishment while making a new establishment so others can't be anti-establishment against your establishment. ....and so on and so on. Why?

I had meant to reply to this point but forgot
This is part of the problem, an almost universal misunderstanding of what anarchy is. Anarchy is to politics what atheism is to religion; a complete lack of. Just as atheism is not a religion, neither is anarchy a form of politics. And it certainly isn't the propaganda horror-scenario of rampant murder, rape and looting in the streets, although it likely would go that route at least temporarily if we ever had true anarchy, but the problem would sort itself out, the general public are basically good people, and they would eradicate the few bad apples. Having a basic understanding that some things are wrong, and that doing them will get you lynched is enough law for anyone. Animals have lived this way since the beginning of life on earth, and we are just evolved animals. The need to dominate others is a genetic trait that helped early humans grow their numbers by dominating surrounding tribes. It can safely be eliminated from the gene pool now, as we are beyond that, and all it is doing for us is enslaving humanity under the power of a few bankers and warlords. Which is totally ghey.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Mark, you didn't win, I'm just too lazy to debate this circular diatribe.

But I will admit, you landed one good punch with me. I don't like how you compared religion to government. I would agree that culture heavily aligns with religion often, but not the constitution of the United States. I am an agnostic with an atheist lean. (i'm still hoping it's mother nature or the sun, lol). But to say that people that believe in a democratic governing organization are like people that believe a mythical deity are the same? You're not even in the ballpark.

[AJOwens]

. . . although it likely would go that route at least temporarily if we ever had true anarchy, but the problem would sort itself out, the general public are basically good people, and they would eradicate the few bad apples. Having a basic understanding that some things are wrong, and that doing them will get you lynched is enough law for anyone. . .

Well, I gotta disagree there. (I haven't read the whole thread, but I think I get the drift.) If people were basically good and could eradicate the few bad apples, how did we end up with government in the first place? Or the Mafia, or ISIS, for that matter? The truth, and exactly the problem you're talking about, is that sometimes the bad apples get the upper hand (pardon the mixed metaphor).

But they don't always. And you know what? To successfully eradicate the bad apples, they would probably have to organize. In fact I think historically that's how it usually goes. You get your armies and your police forces and your jails because the good people are trying to cooperate in keeping the bad ones down.

Of course it depends what you mean by "bad." But if the next country over is trying to mess up your anarchy in a bad way, that's a bunch of bad people you have to deal with, and odds are they're[/] organized.

But government is like any instrument, it can be used well or badly. (Just ask the people around here.) And something that started out good can go bad, because the bad apples somehow got the upper hand (ouch).

Which is I think what's happening here (and of course I'm talking about Canada). I don't think the problem is that there are not enough good people. It's just that there are not enough good people with enough motivation. Life is comfy.

I hope you are wrong about violent revolution being a requirement (and by the way, I would not say stuff like that too much online these days). I would rather see a paradigm shift among good people from being focussed on material comfort to being focussed on happiness, including the happiness of seeing others do well or at least not suffer. Maybe if we get materially comfortable enough, so that human labour is no longer required, we can realize that future. But we need to prepare now by emphasizing, yet again, love over hate.