[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

The thing about anarchy is that it is best defined as "a lack of coercive force" but rule by violence, by strength is pretty much exactly "coercive force". The way anarchy should work is that everyone is their own individual unit. If you choose you can join together, work together, make systems of law because by combining your units you can achieve more than you could apart and the collective good will increase.

Once you've created a system of law is it really anarchy and free of coercive force?

I mean if you make a law that people can't kill, for instance, and someone kills somebody, what do you do about it? If you use force to stop him or remove him from the community you are using coercive force. If you don't use coercive force what's to stop him?

The key is that you have the same amount of power as everyone else in the system and there is nothing compelling you to work with the others- unlike currentely where you have to exist in a country and follow its rules and there are differing degrees of power in the populace.
That's the basic idea anyway. You can have structures and rules and laws in place but they are fluctional and optional.

Isn't this more mobocracy than true anarchy?

Edit for Arch who was nice enough to keep this from being a double post when I accidentally hit reply instead of cutting it to paste into my last post:

Yeah, I don't like the idea of corporations having that much power for a whole SLEW of reasons. Like I said, I hate the idea fervently, but discussing the more communist anarchistic ideals is pretty interesting to me.