Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't think Anarchy would work. There has to be SOME form of government and a law system; otherwise people would just run around doing whatever they wanted. The greeks didn't exactly have an anarchy, but they didn't have a judicial system. As a result, the murder of any person was avenged by the family; as you can well imagine, sometimes this blood vengence could go on for generations.

Anarchy has worked in some smaller areas. For instance, the southern part of greenland had lived under Anarchy for some time, but later a gov't was established.

However, in developed countries such as America, Anarchy would not work. How would you go about ENFORCING the transition to it?

Example countries have sprung up here and there over the centuries, but the results were usually genocide, murder, poverty, and eventual oppression.

So, SR, who do you want to kill and oppress?

Anarchy is somewhat like communism. It looks like a good idea of paper, but once you add the human ingrediants of greed, revenge and other lovely things of the sort, they both fall apart. As people have stated above, anarchy would most certainly not work in today's society. However, in a perfect, logical and mechanical world, it would be a worthwhile option. In this perfect world, there would have to be no humans as we know them. There would have to be no ambition, greed or competativeness. In this hypothetical world it would work.

My point is that it couldn't possibly work in our modernized world.

Anarchy would only work if you got rid of things like human greed and lust for power. But the same goes for communism-good in theory, impossible to execute properly. Sure, in the end, a certain 'power' would arise, but at what cost? At the cost of lives, almost certainly, because anarchy would create chaos and amidst that chaos would be murder.

Government is flawed as it is, but I prefer that over none.

Human greed is only a problem in a situation where there is a scarcity of resources. Such as Present Day, Present Time.

If I were to postulate a random bit of science fiction technology, such as, say personal nanotech matter transformers, an anarchistic society becomes possible because there no longer exists a compelling reason to engage in a system of economics.

If I no longer need authority to live, I can tell it to ******** off.

Of course not.

You'd get people to want to take the country. Look at any point in history anywhere where a ruler died and had no successor (the one that sprung to mind was the period of Warlords in ancient China)

I think so... confused