anarchy is the best form of government

First, let me say that I am not claiming that anarchist governments would solve every problem the world has, that is absurd. Statement: "Racism is a problem in any community... Communities [would be divided by race]." Response: It is because of state-created institutions that racism is a problem. While we could argue about the true, essential reason for why racism exists, this would be irrelevant. What is pertinent is that, in America, the economic institutions initially endorsed by various monarchies led to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade which exploited the labor of and destroyed the lives of many thousands of people. This economic institution was upheld by the American democracy once the country gained its independence. This is getting somewhat off topic, as it is really amoral capitalism that was the economic institution which led to these atrocities, not directly the fault of the monarchy or democracy. However, once people become accustomed to the concentration of power in the hands of the few, as in any type of government aside from anarchy, they readily accept capitalism as the inevitable way of the world because it also tends to concentrate power. Without the concentration of power in the African tribes as well as the European monarchies, the slave trade could never have occurred. Anarchy is as much a philosophy as it is a political theory. Its philosophy is that all people should be treated equally and that this is impossible when hierarchies exist and power is concentrated rather than distributed. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As to whether anarchists communities would be divided on the lines of race it is impossible to know what would happen, however the anarchist philosophy is vehemently anti-racist and anti-classist. "If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable"and this is why we are the enemies of the State." --Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin Statement: "...communities that have no coercive power..." Response: Okay, we really need to get on the same page about how "coercive" was used in my definition of anarchy. First of all, the context was "non-coercive consensus building," which simply means consensus building without one individual or group using threats or power over others to persuade them to agree with them. Aside from that, it has nothing to do with the function of anarchist governing at large. Of course there are some societal needs which require coercion, for example as in the rehabilitation of criminals. This is not at odds with anarchist philosophy. Statement: "...anarchy creates states..." Response: When a state is defined as "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially one that is sovereign" (Mirriam Webster app), and when sovereign is defined as "having independent authority and the right to govern itself" then, yes anarchy creates states. I concede this point, but find it irrelevant to the argument at hand. Statement: "[The Greek government lost] its ability to coerce..." Response: On the contrary, the Greek government coerced its citizens too far with its austerity measures, leading them to reject its sovereignty over them. This abuse of power is exactly what an anarchist government is designed to avoid. Statement: "I disagree. Anarchists were not needed to care for people, charity was needed." Response: I have provided evidence via journalism that Greek anarchists have helped maintain life in Greece. I refuse to speculate as to whether there could be enough outside charity to prop up an ailing Greek economy. Notice Con is not denying that the actions of Greek anarchists have had a positive impact in the country's time of crisis. Statement: "...either we ought to protect our rights to property and liberty by removing coercion from our government, or we craft a government that can provide for the needs of its citizens that inevitably violates their individual rights." Response: Anarchy is not synonymous with unrestricted liberty. Taxing citizens is not a violation of their individual rights, rather it is an extension of the social contract whereby individuals willingly concede certain rights to live in a sovereign entity. That is the basis of any government. Without that is the state of nature discussed by Hobbes and Locke and sometimes referred to as the state of war. Therefore citizens of an anarchist state must concede certain rights or face the consequences as in any functioning government. Also, anarchists are not the least bit concerned with the conventional idea of private property. Statement: "...no government could exist without [unity]." Response: I agree with this, yet find it disturbing that every form of government aside from anarchy discriminates between classes of people while it claims to unify them, e.g. common citizens and senators. Statement: "In order for the Constitution to be considered the new supreme law of the land, it required...9 of the 13 colonies to agree upon it." Response: Yes, that was written into the document, but the authors knew what a catastrophe it would be if only 9 states ratified it and that it would have no effect over the other four states had they decided not to accede to it. Your source, Con is wonderful fodder for my argument for anarchism in its illustration of the Antifederalists' concerns about the new document, "Those known as Antifederalists opposed the Constitution for a variety of reasons. Some continued to argue that the delegates in Philadelphia had exceeded their congressional authority by replacing the Articles of Confederation with an illegal new document. Others complained that the delegates in Philadelphia represented only the well-born few and consequently had crafted a document that served their special interests and reserved the franchise for the propertied classes. Another frequent objection was that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government at the expense of the states" Statement: "Claiming moral high ground for justification for almost anything [is direct action] and...would occur in an anarchy." Response: You are correct that direct action can be dangerous when it is perverted to commit acts that have resulted in innocent casualties. My definition of direct action was erroneous. Direct action really refers to destructive and disruptive actions against the state in which the anarchist rebellion is occurring. Vigilante justice is undesirable and I believe an anarchist society would need to have peace officers who are charged with maintaining the rules but do not have any authority over the general public. I admit this is an incredibly delicate balance that would need constant scrutiny as in committees that review their conduct on an ongoing basis. On a side note, I am really enjoying this debate. Thanks for putting your time and effort into it, Con.