: Gideon, those who have actually lived in real-world anarchy are those who have had continual anxiety and perhaps unceasing threat to their lives during those times. Ok, Robert, I think I understand the confusion. As Gideon implied, you are not distinguishing between anarchy and chaos. The situations you mentioned were times without order, and therefore chaotic. Chaos is the absence of order. Anarchy, by way of contrast, is simply the absence of external, hierarchical authority. In fact, the Paris commune and the FAI's occupation of Barcelona (two actual examples of anarchy in practice) were not particularly violent themselves. Both of these occupations were attacked by statists in short order, but this violence was imposed from the outside. Anarchy isn't chaos, it's a more stable order on an even higher level than statism.
In fact, anarchism in both theory and practice, offers a much more stable order than does statism, since it is an order that is voluntarily chosen by the participants, rather than imposed on them through force, or threat of force, by an external "authority." Since violence is, itself, a form of coersion, anarchists generally reject it, except in cases of self defense, and even then, only as a last resort. States, on the other hand, have violence built into their basic existence. The association of violence with anarchism is statist propoganda. The confusion between anarchy and chaos is also statist propoganda.
It relies on the unproven assumption that order must be imposed by an absolute authority, and that it can not, and will not be freely chosen by reasonable adults. Anarchists reject this assumption and believe that order and rationality are the norm, and that disorder and irrationality are the results of institutional monopolization of force.
I suspect that if you looked more closely at the principles of anarchism, you might come to appreciate its subtlety. You have stated many times that you do not feel comfortable bowing to human authority, and prefer your life to be ruled by your personal relationship with your diety. That is a classic anarchist sentiment, Robert. You may already be an anarchist, and just don't realize it! Although most modern anarchists are not particularly religious, the two sentiments have been effectively combined in the past. I'll get you some references if you express an interest. Rejecting the right of some human to tell you how you can or can not conduct your life is an act of pure anarchism. If you justify that choice on religious grounds, rather than scientific or ethical grounds, so what, IMHO, you're an anarchist nevertheless.
You mentioned that you weren't sure you understood the philosophy behind anarchism. I hope this helps to clarify things for you.
