Anonymous
I did some quick refresh on anarchism. I am not an expert by a long shot so take what I say with a grain of salt.
The meaning of anarchy is “without a hierarchy” often generalized in without a leadership, government. While in human history there has been examples of societies without a government of sort, they are uncommon. In any group of people some kind of hierarchy is established sooner or later. So, at some point the meaning of anarchy became more that of a society not governed by a state, a society in which the people choose the way they want to be governed. No kings, queens, presidents imposing their powers but a government created by the people to serve their needs.
Does that sounds familiar? If it does is because, under that interpretation of anarchism, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are anarchist documents. They reject the rule of a king and “We the People” create a government with set rules to have “a more perfect union.” The original federal government was limited in powers and functions and a subject of the people.
Now, why anarchy is so often used in a negative way? Because it means opposition to central governments so it is anathema for the people in power. What is the argument against it? Anarchy would bring chaos and disorder. Why? Because the government is the source of order and law; since anyone wants order, everyone wants a government. True, but the point is that a neighbor patrol would be able to control crime as well as the state police does (or do better.) A community could hire a garbage collector, no need of a city administrator for that. More to the point of this thread, people could defend themselves without a national army.
@nomoney asks how could we defend against powerful enemies with just a militia. What she forget is that those powerful enemy are so powerful because they had to respond to our own power. After WWII, the USSR was to its knees after loosing 20-26M people and having put all their resources into the war effort. They had to build a nuclear arsenal and a powerful military because we had one and our politicians were not friendly to them despite some advances from Stalin. Same, but in smaller measure, can be said for China. For what concerns North Korea, having lost 20% of their population and having their country bombed to the stone age, they are probably right to be weary of the old good USA. Iran has its own issues that go back to the CIA coup against Mossadeq and decades of tyrannical rule by the USA friendly Reza Pahlavi. So, we could easily conclude that if our government would have pursued more friendly policies toward other countries instead of using an unconstitutional military to impose itself on the world scene, we would not have to worry about defending ourselves. Unless we are afraid of Canadians and Mexicans.
So, maybe @nomoney is right. I am an anarchist. One who wants a government that is subject to the people. Who wants his representatives to answer to him and not to the power of money. Who wants a military for the defense of the country not for waging continuous wars. Who wants his freedom respected as he respects others’. Who believes that the Constitution is a sacred document and that has to be respected. Who do not want to live a lie just because it is more comfortable than reality.
Maybe we need more anarchy in this country to get it back to what it was supposed to be. Not easy job to do considered all the bad reputation and habits we have accumulated over the years.