Not that I support anarchy, but it relies on morals.
It probly assumes that if there are hungry people, food will be given to them by those who have food to spare.
I think it would work if we all lived in little towns; but its not an option for large cities.
Quote:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
It should be noted that "ruler", if used in the context of the third bullet point, has no explicit connection to the term "rules". In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority).
Wikipedia |
(yes, I do realise that wikipedia is less reliable then dictionary.com; but it is gives a much broader definition, and refers to past Anarchies, so in this case, I believe it.