Two

Thought for the day.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society (called, go figure, anarchy). Anything past that is what separates anarchists into the different 'classifications' (inidividualist anarchists, socialist anarchists, etc).
I have a number of opinions that hold with some of the anarchist ideals. I also see such opinions for how the world should be as idealism, not realism. People are too evil to be left to their own devices. There are not enough honestly good people for it all to play out well. Eventually too many of the young, weak and infirm would be left to the mercy of the merciless. Eventually, those who are too evil and greedy would find a way to bring a form of state back in.
There is also the hope that a lot of the horrible things that happen are results, directly or indirectly, of the influences of state. That without state there would be more than enough of an all-for-one and one-for-all attitude, that people would live happily in community as opposed to under state. That there would be enough people willing to help those who needed help - because there will ALWAYS be people who need help. The hope that a lack of state really truly would mean an abundance of community.
There is also massive contradiction with some anarchists. The idea that violence and aggression is wrong and damages the individual, that self-defence and non-violence are the ways to go, is fine. But in order to try to bring about a state of chaos wherein a community of anarchy can be achieved people have used extreme violence. Is that in direct violation of the non-violence belief, or is it deemed and viewed as an act in self-defence of the violation of one's individual self by state? If a life of peace as equals is the goal, I don't believe violence is the right way to achieve it. Rather spoils the whole idea, wouldn't you say?
I don't wholly agree with state, as it is. I know if the world was full of me's in a state of anarchy it would be fine. It would mean huge emphasis of the sovereign individual. But an alarming number of individuals are of such a disposition that in the real world, it would create a highly unstable, volatile life for everyone. People get greedy, for any number of things, and community would suffer. People can't live without other people, but because of those who spoil it for the rest, we would not be able to function properly without state. Before society ever came close to becoming an anarchy, someone with their own agenda would have state propped right back up. It is completely unrealistic to believe the world could exist in a state of anarchy (and thus, stateless) for even a minute, however unfortunate that fact is. I like the ideas of anarchy, and tribalism, very much. However, I am not an anarchist. I do not attempt to achieve anarchy for the whole world, or a nation. I believe it to be futile, and therefore just live my life. People can strive to achieve a kind of anarchic way within groups and clubs and communes. There will always, however, be the confines of the state.

Regards,
Don't-know-where-that-came-from.