OSNews

This thread seems to be all-out political, so here I go. Let's start with a bit of terminology, from merriam-webster.com:

Anarchy:
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Anomie:
Main Entry: an·o·mie
Variant(s): also an·o·my \ˈa-nə-mē\
Function: noun
Etymology: French anomie, from Middle French, from Greek anomia lawlessness, from anomos lawless, from a- + nomos law, from nemein to distribute — more at nimble
Date: 1933

: social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values; also : personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals

— ano·mic \ə-ˈnä-mik, -ˈnō-\ adjective

I know there's some overlap, and the term "anarchy" is widely used in ordinary speech as a synonym of "anomie" (or "anomy"), or "social chaos"; but I think it's both more etymologically correct and more useful to keep them separate in the context of political philosophy.

Monarchists, democrats and anarchist, all of them realize that some coexistence rules are needed. Monarchists wonder who will make those rules, and they answer: "let's pick the wisest man!"; democrats wonder how will society pick the rulers and keep them in check (republicans) or how society will make the rules without rulers (direct democrats), and their answer is: "The only thing we can all agree on is how many of us favor each option, so let the majority decide."; anarchists don't want to commit to a ruler or a rule-making process, they just wonder what those coexistence rules may be, so that almost everyone can accept them and a peaceful, civilized society can be built on them.

Many anarchists propose a more or less socialistic organization, or fail to go beyond the isolated individual.

Then there are libertarians, who tend to stress the freedom of the individual in front of the State. Neither are all anarchists libertarians nor all libertarians anarchists. There are several libertarian currents, of which a very influential one is that of minarchists, who want a minimal government to protect property rights through its monopoly on violence, but let everything else to the market.


Market anarchists (also called anarcho-capitalists) are libertarian anarchists who favor private property rights and free association, including free trade. In this kind of society aggression (offensive violence or its threat) is never accepted, and retaliation (defensive violence) is the way to prevent it. When people disagree about who is the aggressor, they can try to sort it out by themselves or agree on an arbitrator; at worst, they may end up fighting, but the key point is that none of them is granted the right to a monopoly on violence, which defines a government.

I'd say most sources of today's social friction, like disagreements on dressing codes, lifestyles, noise standards and gun control policy, could be eliminated in a libertarian society through fenced communities with internal bylaws, which people can freely join.