[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa But what you describe has nothing to do with anarchism. Liberty isn't only the freedom to do without. It can be a very positive social order to get rid of monopolistic and coercive institutions. It's not about looking at a starving person and saying "'tain't MY problem." It is our problem. Without authorities to dominate resources there would be no need to fight for them. Obviously, someone's having authority over you does not mean no one will fight over resources. In fact, it overwhelmingly tends to make it more likely. Grandpa h.

That is what you conceive to be true, but there is no evidence that it is true. Humans did not spring into being with large centralized governments. If people were going to just naturally find this happy, cooperative existence, don't you think at least some of the disparate populations would show some evidence of this? The lack of any long term, viable examples of the system you seem to be saying is the natural state man would seek (if it weren't for nasty "ruling elites") is powerful and convincing evidence that your assumptions are wrong. It's like saying lions would prefer to live solitary lives but the power of the pride keeps them from doing so or that social pressure makes people predominantly heterosexual. You are coming at it all backwards. All of the evidence points to the fact that humans are most successful when they surrender a certain level of autonomy to centralized power and that given the choice between no leadership and dictatorial leadership, they will pick the dictator. I am not saying that dictators are good. I am saying people are most successful when they cooperate and that absolutely requires some level of coercive authority.