>Anarchy is not the same as disorder or lack of rules. Well said. Anarchy is not a world without rules - it's a world without rulers. I always like to refer t

>Anarchy is not the same as disorder or lack of rules. Well said. Anarchy is not a world without rules - it's a world without rulers. I always like to refer to something that Alan Moore (the author of V for Vendetta) said: he regards the current state of society as anarchy gone horribly wrong. As he remarks, people often like to claim that in a state of anarchy, the strongest would eventually rule, and use this to dismiss the philosophy as a whole. Now he asks (and so do I), how is this different from our current society? The strong (corporations and governments backed by monetary and military power) control the weak (the general populace), and will do everything to keep the current state of affairs and to prevent the loss of their power, including threats, lies and atrocities against life. Anarchy is the most natural and best state of human society. It is actually unavoidable, since entropy dictates that any society will eventually disintegrate. Instead of counteracting this with increasingly strict control, which always leads to some sort of authoritarian dictatorship (which will also eventually destroy itself), we should embrace chaos, and try to work with it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist or - worse - that it is tamable.