The title above is more than enough to discredit many of the opposing opinions. But since I need to use up at least 50 words let me say this: Statism is mass legalized plunder, murder, mayhem, and fraud. Statism is lawlessness. It is statism that is synonymous with chaos. Liberty, yes, even unto anarchy, is the mother of order. You can see it in our everyday lives. The state, on the other hand, is institutionalized barbarism. It is a decivilizing factor, and as such has as its only recourse the imposition of its plans through violence, threats, deception, and the outright stupidity of its servants and wards. "Statism. Ideas so Good, They're Mandatory."
Is rape a viable alternative to consensual sex? Is slavery a viable alternative to freedom?
Ofcourse not, no interaction where one party is forced can be considered viable in the long run. Logic, reason, and choice are important factors in the long term viability, sustainability, and mutual benefit of any interaction, especially at the level of an entire society.
Anarchy is simply a recognition that no one has a right to rule, that is, no one has the right to initiate force on others.
The initiation of force can never successfully achieve any good it is intended to reach. It never has, and it never could, it is a contradictory proposition.
To all those who think people will run around and do as they please, you are justifying cowardice. Yes there will be people that just do as they please, are there not already? The community that is the most efficient will be the community that grows the most, and becomes the best, are you afraid your excessive lifestyle will be your downfall? Is it right that everyone is allowed to force everyone else how to behave, what to do, what not to do, at gunpoint via police officers? Can anarchism truly be as violent as a police state that has many personnel armed and ready to draw their weapons at any sign of disobedience? I think not. Naturally a trial should be as fair as possible, but police aren't the only threat to violent people, the victims and their families are the biggest threat to a true violent criminal.
Anarchy is more than often identified as a negative term. "Descent into anarchy" is used to describe a situation in which every person acts for themselves as a lawless and morally questionable bandit, looting burning and raping everything. However that is not anarchy, that is barbarism.
Anarchism promotes the dissolution of the state and the body of government, rejecting that a few elite of individuals are responsible for holding so much power in their hands and the eventual usurpation, abuse and corruption that will come out of it. Each person is and should always be responsible for their behavior, the community and in a larger scale, society is the mutual agreement between individuals to respect each other's lives and abide by a "golden rule" (do unto others as you would have others do unto you). What happens when someone doesn't abide by this rule? let's say someone commits a crime, like stealing or murdering someone. What then? With no government how would justice be dispensed? The community would be in charge of their own justice, a fair trial could still take place, there is no reason to reject perfectly reasonable procedures left by the old world model, we can still have laws...
It's clear that in modern society, Anarchism is not viable, however striving for an anarchic society is indeed possible and very important. Small communities can organize themselves and govern themselves on common democratic grounds, electing a different leader every certain time out of it's most trusted and outstanding members. These leaders would not act as rulers, but as moderators and beacons of council for the community, as well representatives of their interests in front of other communities.
But what of crime and punishment? When do you draw the line on harsh punishment? Well, that's one of the many things we must work out, we have to come to a consensus on how should we proceed when sentencing crimes, clearly always respecting the criminal's dignity and integrity as a human being, removing from the question things such as torture or mutilation.
Anarchy, in the most literal sense of the definition, simply means a system with no rulers. Even this is, at its base, completely impossible for any extended period of time. The nature of human beings is such that our brains impose order on any system which we are presented with. Its a hard wired part of what makes a human being tick (for evidence of this, look into how your brain processes visual information). It happens to be why people often find coincidences everywhere and see the face of Jesus in toast. Its just how we are formed. That being the case, even in small social situations people will inevitably divide into those leading and those following. Some people will always rise to the top of any group, while others will always lack the confidence to make decisions on their own. The minute there is a hierarchical structure, anarchy ceases to exist and human being will always impose a hierarchical structure on any group.
Anarchy-No state, no monopoly on the use of force over a given area is simply impossible. Even if you just have a bunch of random groups of people in an area who want to defend themselves to avoid civil war they will have to make agreements with each other and these agreements constitute a government and the framework of organization that puts this into place is the state.
And if nobody is getting along, then still people occupy space, so if you are holding the law to be X you are holding it to be X for some area even if it's just your lawn and that becomes a "state" at least until a bigger stronger group comes along to enforce its laws.
Anarchy is not a viable alternative to the state; it is what exists when a state breaks down. It was the condition that people lived in before civilized society developed. People can disagree on how strong the state should be, and what its responsibilities should be, but there must always be something, in order to ensure that people can live in peace.
Anarchy would break down society. Government maintains order and allows us to be progressive and advanced. Without a moderator it would be a wild west mentality, where every man was for himself. There would be no authority to determine what is heinous. Murder wouldn't be punished. Anarchy is extremely dangerous and ineffective.
I have to definitly dissagree with the above statements. We really have no way of knowing whether the nations the Israelites were forced to destroy were ever warned of there imminent doom. But I can say with reasonable certainty that they were. I say this because Nineva was an evil nation who did things detestable to the Lord. God sent Jonah to warn them that if they didn't, then they would die. We really have no way of knowing if God gave them warning. Secondly, if you mess up, you have to pay the price. Moses was God's most reverent prophet, but he never got to see the promised land. Moses disobeyed. God doesn't believe in killing innocent civilians for the sake of them being innocent. He believes in punishment.
Anarchy is a tempting idea to radical thinkers, but in the long run is never the correct answer. There are way too many ideas and concepts to peacefully promote change instead. Anarchy has been the downfall of too many historical institutions to accept it as a viable alternative for a better change.
In a sufficiently large nation, it would be utterly insane to think that you could abolish all government with no repercussions. There would be no law enforcement, and people are far too psychopathic, ignorant, and greedy to ever enforce rules amongst themselves. Outright anarchy would cause the collapse of the country in fairly short order.
I do not believe anarchy is a viable alternative to the state. Anarchy promotes a state of uncertainty and people function best when they can rely on certain facets of civilization. Anarchy can be used as a tool to change the reality of a state, but I do not think it can function on it's own for an extended period of time.