An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind. In a situation like that, where is the line drawn? How do you imagine a society thriving where violence begets more violence? In our society now, violence is a cycle. How do you expect this cycle to evolve when there is no consequence? How is that a more efficient world than we have now?

http://www.ergoindemand.com/images3/eye%5B1%5D.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/16jh2sx.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/20..._300x304,0.jpg

http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/a...24/anarchy.jpg

and just how is this different than modern regional municipal governments in relation to larger national federal governments aside from semantics? let me guess, the small group of members in said coalitions would all have to pay a stipend into the trust of the group to better help develop itself and its means but that is in NO WAY AT ALL A TAX right?



@CardboardAdolescent - as always your ideas are some of the best i read, but at the same time in this discussion i can't see them really being much more than well meaning fluff. it would be nice if everything could work out like that, would also be nice if people were actually rational. fact is, we're not, we're a flawed species and it's why we need to keep progressing because if we don't we'll never actually become something of worthwhile substance.

How exactly would anarchy work if we each abide by our own ideals and sense of right and wrong?

Heh...
Are you really asking that?

I'm sorry, I'm fucking stupid.

survival of the fittest :ar_15s:

Anyone here read Mill's On Liberty? I've just begun it for my Ethics class. It seems very relevant to this discussion.

I think that in the practical application anarchy would be unsustainable for any extended period of time. People would wind up finding it advantageous to organize into larger and larger groups and before you know it, boom, you'd have governments. Ironically, anarchy being what it is, there'd be nothing in place to prevent this from happening.