OccultHawk

Maybe the question should be whether or not using a very organized forceful group of people (government) to inflict their will on man is better than not prohibiting man from doing whatever he wants.

Well, I'm a kind of tribal anarchist, I guess. But to me, at this point, it doesn't matter what you believe in when there's 7 billion people on the planet. With all the people we have now, you can't take a piss without tresspassing on another. So step one of my never to happen utopia (that would admittedly probably turn to **** in actual practice anyway) is to convince people of the obvious truth that there are way too many of us and then to start on a cooperative way to reduce the world's population to a small fraction of what it is now. I think 500 million might be low enough. This might not answer your question completely because the issue of the victimized individual still comes into play. But with more elbow room, way more elbow room, humanity could spread out more allowing people more freedom to act before it becomes a tresspass. With regards to straight out exploitation of the individual, well, living in Sweden you may have some reason to believe that this is something that government is effective at preventing. In much of the world there is no force more effective at destroying the rights of the individual through violence than the current government.

I do admit that at this point I fear my neighbors as much as the police. So besides lowering the world's population, in order for anarchy to work people need to learn how to behave. Mankind is going to have to find a way to start weeding out undesirables. At this point, it seems obvious to me that it's the least desirable people of all who are breeding the most. Maybe lettting this planet go all the down the toilet is better than the measures it would take to prevent it.