I see a lot of people wandering around the internet lately calling themselves "anarchists". there seem to be two types of anarchists running around. A very small group who think that anarchy is the free-for-all chaos run around like an unrestrained toddler in the throes of the terrible two's. The other group is larger and does believe in order and rules but they believe the state (government) is unnecessary in any form.
First of all, the first, smaller group is just a bunch of flakes looking for any excuse to be a jackass and think that anarchy justifies it.
The second group sis a different bunch. I admire them in one way that they think that people are able to be so responsible and self controlled that no legislative, police or judiciary organization is required or desired.
How ideal to think people are so capable. I completely and emphatically disagree with them that such a society is possible. They are quick to refer us to several examples of societies with no government having existed. What they fail to disclose is that upon closer examination, none of those societies are long-lived. They cannot be sustained because the idea is dependent on a perfect world where all people are accountable and responsible for their behavior. It is an ideal that cannot be realized or achieved as more than an experiment.
I love them that they are so idealistic. I think it is fantastic to be so optimistic about people in general as to think the way they do. I would say that in concept, I have no doubt that I could be such an anarchist. But I am certain that it is not plausible in real life. I like to think that if one such society were to be created that was not a voluntary socialist society, I would be there in a flash.
Sadly though, it really is not plausible for the long term. The number one reason for my saying so is that some people are jack-asses and will ruin it for the rest. Take a brand spanking new voluntary anarchist society and it will work great for the first maybe ten years. Inevitably, some people will find themselves dissatisfied with how things are working out but because they were one of the original volunteers, they will have a sense of entitlement that makes them think they have some right to expect the rest of the society to change to meet the one person's expectations. It is at this point, the first indications of government will rise and the state will begin as a committee for change.
Let's give this society the benefit of the doubt and give them the first twenty years as going ideally. the first non-volunteer members of the society, the children of the first volunteers, will most definitely field at least one, my bet is multiple, people who feel entitled to drive some kind of societal change to meet their expectations. It's human nature.
As someone who kinda, sorta, self identifies with libertarianism, I have to say we libertarian types aren't too far from the idealist line either. We have no doubt that some sort of government is useful, if not inescapable (notice that at no time do I say "necessary") but that we want to hinder and restrain any government to being as limited as possible and out of the way of the typical voluntary citizen. Yeah, That's like planting a tree and expecting it not to grow higher than a bush. Not very freaking realistic either but more likely achievable than the anarchist pipedream. It seems that way anyway. On paper. ish.