The inevitability of anarchy

In response to a posting on northeastshooters:

Quote:

The problem is that no one has come up with a better system than democracy.

I posit that the problem is that society hasn't become sufficiently fragmented yet that people demand anarchy on a more granular scale than what we currently have. Remember that we already live in an anarchy of states: each nation operates in an anarchic nature with its neighbors, and with few exceptions (generally involving mercantilistic war) things are pretty peaceful.

I think the US will eventually rend itself apart as many small- to medium-sized groups with mutually-exclusive standards of behavior wrestle for control of the apparatus of government in order to make life more pleasant for themselves, but at the same time force those behavioral standards on the other groups. I think anarchy is an inevitable result, because as force proliferates and individuals, small groups, and defense contractors are able to wield state-like force, minorities will start thinking, "Why do I have to put up with these rules I don't like? I and my chosen community have the power to defend our property from X group that is trying to control our behavior."

What contradicts your supposition (and what Murphy was trying to get at) is that since you're not starting from chaos, but rather from a well-ordered society, anarchy will result in a strict step-up in peaceful relations as the need to force one's views on others in order to increase the perception of personal safety disappears. The only reason I even have to sit at a table and debate with religious-right whackos, leftist loonies, and tree-huggers is that we are all forced to live under the same set of rules; eliminate that problem, and any desire to force my views on them goes away.