Anarchism has never worked, not only among humans but in other higher life as well. Lions and Wolves have an alpha male, Tribal Humans have a Chief, etc. Organizations of species will always form into a organizational system in order to create necessary order and survive.

An Anarchic civilization would quickly result in the creation of local chiefs/elders and protectors of the peace.

__________________

I agree with Caltex; anarchy inevitably leads to the formation of governments as people organize themselves into groups. Anarchy exists only as a transitional stage between governments, and can only last a very short time before a group or groups rise to fill the power vacuum.

As to whether anarchy is a desirable state of being, I'd say definately not. Sacrifices in individual liberty need to be made for the benefit of the collective (I'm not a Marxist, bear with me...). Humans are naturally selfish and greedy creatures. A powerful government is needed to suppress these dangerous feelings and protect us from each other, in addition to protecting us and our interests from external threats.

__________________

Anarchy is nature. Anarchy is self-government, it's mankind without central authority, but it's also mankind without rights. The government is the only thing protecting and enforcing our rights, without it, our rights are meaningless. Without the government, there is nothing to stop someone bigger than you from stealing your property--there is nothing to stop someone bigger than you from killing you. In anarchy, humans take "survival" a few steps farther into what becomes a cruel "survive and thrive" mindset. Now, not only will the biggest and strongest survive by taking what they need, they'll take what they want as well--causing everyone else smaller and weaker than them to suffer. Anarchy is chaos, anarchy is the anti-logic social code. Like many in this topic have said, government is the logical answer to the conundrum of anarchy and Locke himself wrote about this in Two Treatises of Government.

The people forfeit that anarchical "right" to do whatever they want to do without consistently enforced consequences to a government--a central authority--so that the government can exercise that authority and protect and preserve the set of rights that are most important to the people--the right to property, freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. in the case of a Democratic or representative society. Many people are under the impression that the people "own" or should control the government. Not so. There is a crucial balance that must be maintained between the government and the citizens. If the government becomes too powerful, then the citizens suffer, and Locke and the framers of our Constitution were utterly opposed to this, so they were inspired to take measures to try and prevent this and educate the people so that this would not happen. However, they also knew that the government must retain its authority and that the central authority that governs the collective society cannot be constantly undermined, or else the government loses that power and authority with which to enforce the rights of the people. It's a delicate balance and the collective needs prevail over the wants of individuals.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

But anarchism doesn't mean chaos. Anarchism is order. It just means a society organized without a coercive state.

Those who use the word "anarchy" to mean disorder or misrule are not incorrect. If they regard government as necessary, if they think we could not live without the powers that be directing our affairs, if they think politicians are essential to our well being and that we could not behave socially without police, they are right in assuming that anarchy means the opposite to what governement guarantees. But those who have the reverse opinion and consider government to be tyranny, are right too in considering anarchy (no government) to be liberty. If Government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order.

thats a negative discription of government, dont forget the benefits of government.

anarchy is an ideal, but we have no examples where it ever has been realized.

There can be no order without a coercive force to make the bad apples of society comply. Additionally an authority figure will always form, as it is our instinct to look for a leader figure. The most immediate leader figure in human society is the head of household, then local leaders or "chiefs", etc.

Humans cannot function without an authority figure. Now I'm not saying it has to be a powerful central government, but if there is any government with any level of power including police powers, then it is no longer anarchism. Anarchism by definition is the lack of government.

No human civilization has ever flourished without some hierarchical system, be it a tribal chief, a central government, or a polis city-state government.

__________________

Then maybe we are all bad if we cannot live without authority. Are we just like robots which need to obey and follow instructions from someone else?

I believe good people can do well without leadership and authority but there are always those who like to follow others and obey their laws.

But why do we need an hierarchial system? Why is it human nature to look for an authority figure?