I think one must first define anarchy.Â From the American Heritage Dictionary.
Anarchy:Â An absence of any form of political authority.Â Political disorder and confusion. Absence of any cohering principle, as a common standard or purpose.
Anarchism:Â The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable, and should be abolished.Â Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.Â Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.
Now, how does this fit with families, churches, and business?
Modern families have to operate within a social/ political framework if they are to be productive members of an organized society.Â There has to be a framework within which the family must operate in modern society.Â Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon your viewpoint, not all people see their roles in society the same way.Â Therefore there is a need for rules.Â Then, if there is a need for rules, there is a need for enforcement of those rules.
You wrote: There are many ways social behaviors are controlled without explicit laws and police to maintain relatively peaceful associations with others.
This can be true in some instances.Â But there are so many instances where it is not true because others do not interact peaceably in society.Â Enter enforcement and police.Â They are a necessary part of any modern society.Â No police?Â What happens when your grandmother is raped and robbed and even worse, murdered by some thug who has no respect for another human being?
Business has to operate within a political framework if they are to be productive in a modern economy. I will explain later.
Churches, business, and families have to operate under a coherent principle as a common standard or purpose.
Families exist as a social unit.Â Businesses exist as an economic entity.Â And churches exist as a common meeting place by those who freely choose to act in such a manner.Â No rules or common understandings then nothing will be accomplished except chaos.
you wrote:If you consider a business, for example, and look at the desire of most the individuals involved to maintain a productive and healthy or otherwise beneficial arrangement between themselves, there's little need for any real physical enforcement of anything except the ability to remove those disturbing this arrangement from being part of this association.
What about U.S.Customs?Â Do you promote just allowing anything imported into the United States without inspection with regard to the safety of all US citizens just because a US business and a Chinese business care to trade?Â Or let's say a Arab business trading with ABC company of Podunk, Kansas?Â This is a recipe for the destruction of our society.
you wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that anarchy, within limits, as shown in many private institutions, works quite well.Â There are few areas in day to day life where forceful interactions are needed, and given time, a society that grew up in such an environment would likely adapt to these circumstrances.
"Anarchy within limits"?Â Â This is an oxymoron.Â It make no sense because by definition there are no limits in anarchy.Â
There are many areas in modern American society where "forceful interactions" are required.Â I think you are looking at modern day society through rose pink glasses.Â Given the opportunity, historically speaking, large corporations have polluted our environment.Â Remember love canal?Â Kerr McGee killed Karen Silkwood and radiated other workers.Â Common street hoods commit crimes everyday in American cities.Â Given time, in your scenario, the "outlaws, anarchists, and the physically strong would rule society and the peaceful citizen would be a fossil.
You wrote:Â I think once people see past the political titles and realize that in terms of what real results are likely to be seen, we're almost all on the same page, there's little concern except over which part of government to chip away at.
This may be true but modern American society is far to pre-occupied with countering terrorism, earning a decent living, raising and protecting their families, and "living day to day life" to be concerned about Utopian ideas of peaceful coexistence.Â Unfortunately this is true for our political systems as well.Â Politicians are concerned with only one thing:Â keeping themselves in power.Â So until the voters realize that politicians seek only to perpetuate their power by making and extending a myriad of laws to justify that end, then there will be no real change.Â Change must come from within and at the micro political level.
This is what I think the FSP is about;Â change of a form of government at the smallest level so that it can evolve into town change, then into state level change, and eventually, to the national level.Â This is not anarchy, nor is there any room for such a chaotic form of society.Â Anarchists seem to me, to be selfish, myopic and politically naive people, who given the opportunity would allow society as we know it, to break down into a nightmare scene of social war allowing those who wish to control others, do so through any means possible.Â Who wants to sit at the door of their home with a 50mm machine gun to protect their family from villlans who wish to rob, rape, maime and kill others to satisfy personal aberrant illusions of their role in a society based upon anarchy.
Please keep in mind that I don't speak for anyone but myself.Â Â