Yes. Specifically Anarcho-Capitalism. No Government whatsoever. Private Police, Private Cities, Private Roads, Private everything.

So even national defense would be privatized? Don't think it would work. Plus the mere definition of anarchy would mean absence of law...how would the privatized entities function in a lawless environment? I think it would quickly devolve into Mad Max.

I do not think you understand what anarchy is. Where is Sicarius when you need him.

Conservative, move to Somalia and see how you like it there.

@ General: For the first point, have you ever heard of Militia? And, if the whole world was in Anarchy there would be no need for even that. For your second point, have you ever heard of Private Defence Agencies? They can create different plans, with different rules, with some limitations, like murder can't be allowed. (Other PDA's would try to destroy a PDA that allowed murder) Then people pay for tha plan they want, and then they can't do what the plan says, and they receive protection if the break a law of someone else's PDA.

I haven't really organized my thoughts on the subject. I'll let you know later.

For more info (and a more convincing argument) visit:
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part10

for an even better and more convincing argument, read:
http://jim.com/anarchy/

Milita are not "PDAs". PDAs Destroying PDAs sounds like Rennaisance Italy. Have you read The Prince, or heard the problems the US has with Blackwater. How do you control the PDAs.

If PDA's get out of control, they will lose customers. They don't want to lose customers. And I never said that Militia were PDA's

Somalia is not and has never had anarchy. Different parts of the country came under the thumb of various warlords after the collapse of the central government. These warlords run their own governments. That is not anarchy. That is a nation-state dissolving into smaller constituent nations and mapmakers being too lazy to update the maps.

I will say, though, that these successor domains *do* tend to be quite weak, with the fortunate result that Somalia has the fastest growing economy in Africa.

Whilst a commendable idea, I don't think that anarchy could work in a majority of cases. I agree that it isn't impossible, but I fear that it is an inherently unstable system.

@ Conservative:
You have a really rosy view of human nature...

That's what I thought when I first read about it, and I'm still not 100% sure it could work, but the more I read about it, the more it made sense.

Anarcho-capitalism: The worst parts of capitalism, combined with the worst part of anarchism.

@Xapi: You don't even give an argument about why you think that. That loses you some credibility.

Private armies have a simple problem:

Much like the mercenary forces of early modern Europe, they have the means to take what they want. And their leaders have every reason to keep the rank and file happy, and less so to keep the people happy. The "Captain" or "Colonel" of whatever mercenary company isn't going to take shit from some random semi-armed civilian, milita or not.

Assume for a moment that a private military force has roughly equivalent arms to the US army. That means a civilian militia with shoulder arms, and perhaps a smattering of light artillery would be facing an organized force that has tanks, heavy artillery, body armor, and possibly even airpower. In other words, you could go down fighting, but it would be in their interests to fucking obliterate you, in order to teach any other groups of people not to screw with you, and to pay up when you ask. Basically a protection racket, but with heavier weapons.

Thus, we get looting, rape, and murder. And not in that order, usually.

Aracho-Capitalism suffers from the same problem that Communism suffers from. It doesn't take enough into account how much of bastards people can be to other people.

But if the whole world was in Anarchy, we wouldn't have this problem. And, even today, with governments, this problem could still arise if one Army is a lot more powerful than the other.

And when did I mention private armies?

What is to prevent a bunch of PDAs from banding together and running the show their way. If a PDA gets out of control you get problems like Blackwater if your lucky, at worse they take over.

"Private Defense Agencies" I mean, lets cut to the chase. They're mercenaries.

There will always be somebody who wants what you have and would be willing to kill to take it.

general max, bbanner, i think you dont understand what anarchy is, Anarchy is not a system without rules, its a system without rulers, this point is really misunderstood. I guess in modern pop culture "anarchy" has come to mean that mad max/somalia type situation.
Conservative man, i see that you are the rightwing Rule of the Jungle kind of anarchism and not my kind of decentralized Anarcho-syndicalism. So in your world you are saying if i have more/bigger guns than you and i would like your 14 year old daughter to join my harem.....so be it ?

As I said, they would lose customers. Then they would lose money. Then, the owners would lose their business.

I was talking to warsprite before btw. Anyway, @ Jack: If someone kills you for something, a PDA (or as you put it, mercenary) will punish him for it, They'll show his PDA the evidence, and if a jury finds him guilty, they will send him to jail. If they find him guilty but his PDA does not give him up, they will lose customers for letting a murderer go free.
@sean: What would your type of anarchy do to prevent that? And anyway, that could happen nowadays, too.

When did you mention Private Armies? At least twice. Private everything would mean private armies. and you started using "PDA".

Their "customers" won't have a choice, is what I'm saying.

If I'm in charge of a mercenary company, and Mr. Whoozit doesn't pay up, I can always have him shot. In the face, preferably, to make a point. I'm interested in the bottom line, and there is a lot more money in taking what I want than there is in being altruistic. At least in the short-term. And I've got X number of soldiers that need to get paid and kept happy, and if I don't keep them happy, they can always have me shot, and elect somebody else to lead this outfit.

This has happened in history before.... medieval armies that used mercenaries often found that they were less than reliable, and also dangerous to the population, specifically because they're out for just profit.

@Conservative Man: It's just that Anarcho Capitalism really doesn't deserve a deeper thought than that.

Regular anarchy, it's might makes right in a way, but at least you're not allowed to accumulate wealth in a manner that allows you to accumulate "might". So "might" comes down to how many people you can get to rally behind you, and without an economic incentive, there's not a visible way to do that unless you are "right" in some way. Thisis because in anarchism, you're not allowed to trade, everything you don't use is free for anyone to take.

Anarcho-capitalism looses the only thing that makes anarchy worth a shot, wich is the fact that everyone is allowed to take anything, and use it for their profit.

If the current capitalism is bad in that it creates inequity and extreme poverty and extreme wealth, anarcho capitalism is that, more of that, and then add a spice of "I have guns so I can shoot you down, no questions asked"

I would say that Anarchy (not anarcho-capitalism) is about organizing one's life without mediators.

Losing customers, your kidding? If they just take over why bother with "customers".