> I've always found the anarchist ideology confusing. As far as I can tell, the most coherent philosophy of anarchy is "participatory democracy." Basically, if

> I've always found the anarchist ideology confusing. As far as I can tell, the most coherent philosophy of anarchy is "participatory democracy." Basically, if you want to be part of a society, you can take part. If you don't like it, you can leave. The problem with this is that people are selfish. If I think that plunder and rape is okay, and the other people in my area don't want me plundering, then all I have to do is say, "Well, I'm not participating in your democracy! I can do as I please!" In response, they have two options - let me be, (which is undesirable, as they're right next to me, and I'm going to attack them) or stop me by force. If they do the latter, guess what - they're a government! A crude, ad hoc, mob-driven, vigilante justice-condoning government, but a government nonetheless. And now we're right back to where we started, with the typical abuse of power, injustice, and so on. Probably with a lot more than what we started with, as infant governments tend to be messy when dealing with problems. So, the only way that anarchy can work is if everyone is benevolent. If that existed, then the government would be awesome and we wouldn't be trying to get rid of it.