Global Anarchy is unsustainable

"I myself would like to give the definition..." Definition 2 is a negative form of anarchism. Under such a system, it is most probably self fuelling and self sustainable, thus neatly meeting the requirements for your first definition and supporting my own position (anarchism is sustainable). However I am arguing for positive anarchism, while not necessary, makes the debate more interesting, and which you direct your arguments to, so we revert to my original definition. Anarchism does not need the consent (one could hardly imagine a case where it would) nor support of the government. Political uprising, for example, can easily destabilise a government to the point of dissolution (refer to your opening point, round 1). "The philosophical ideal of Humanism..." You have just committed the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (argument to the gallery/people). Mass opinion does not equate to any form of proof. If they had all made a statement regarding the positive existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I doubt you would hold their opinion to the same veridicality. Freud's theory you failed to mention the mediating effects of the ego on the Id and super ego. Under Freudian theory, if you want to continue arguing that point, base human impulse is controlled. Skinner's behaviourism, while useful (phobias, addiction), does not account for the entirety of human motivation. Cognitive, social and neural psychology shows we are more complex than the mere cause and effect of behaviourism. You argue that people will be selfish, and selfishness can not help others. Selfishness is indeed for the self, but in no way does that preclude helping others. Community involvement is based on identification of a unique ultimate goal for each motive. For egoism, the ultimate goal is to increase one's own welfare; for altruism, it is to increase the welfare of another individual or individuals; for collectivism, to increase the welfare of a group; and for principlism, to uphold one or more moral principles. As sources of community involvement, each of these four forms of motivation has its strengths; each also has its weaknesses. Effective efforts to stimulate community involvement are from strategies that orchestrate motives so that the strengths of one motive overcome weaknesses of another. Strategies that combine appeals to either altruism or collectivism with appeals to principle are especially promising. Non profit organisations in Australia receive support from an estimated 6.3 million volunteers annually. These volunteers perform a range of activities and tasks at no cost to the organisation (this equates to over ï¿½ of the population involved). Non profit organisations make an important contribution to a society through their demonstration and encouragement of collective action. As non profit organisations promote collective action it should be said that this helps create a sense of community through a group of likeminded people looking to improve social capital. Non profit organisations support communities so that people do not simply have to rely on the government for social and economic support. Donors of charitable organisations traditionally express more commitment to the cause of the organisation; they do not necessarily need to be committed to the organisation carrying out the cause. Selfishness is a boon in this regard, motivations for pro social acts is all that is required, if an individual wishes to feel good, by doing positive actions, then so be it. Lyons, M. (2001). Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit and Cooperative Enterprises in Australia. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2005). The Antecedents of Donor Commitment to Voluntary Organisations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16(1), 61-78. Nichols, S. (2001). Mindreading and the Cognitive Architecture underlying Altruistic Motivation. Mind & Language 16, 425-455. "I believe secular humanism..." Secular Humanism relies heavily on the scientific method and has a strong basis within the ideals of existentialism, and scepticism. Scientific research is rarely read outside of those in the field itself or the scientific community as a whole. If by advancement you mean, scientific advancement, then yes, secular humanism does support such rationalist approaches. How that is a negative you have failed to argue. Nihilistic claims that there are no morals without religion is a false one, Greek philosophy had a strong tradition of moral codes before religions appropriated them. You have previously used evolutionary psychology as an example, the same field, that argues the basis of social evolution, and yes, that includes morals. "Although those might be good values..." Anarchists can be Capitalist. Just because a state doesn't have a central government, doesn't mean it can not possess an economy, and pure capitalism requires no governing body. In a parecon, there are a few parallel ways to think about international relations. Optimally, the world becomes a parecon so that the gains and benefits of economics everywhere impact people everywhere similarly and as equitably as within parecons. Essentially it is a free trade system. "Free-Market Economy, economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions. Individuals are free to make economic decisions concerning their employment, how to use or accumulate capital, what expenditures to make, and whether to use their resources now or to save them for later consumption." "The principles underlying free-market economies are based on laissez-faire (non-intervention by government) economics." "Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an "invisible hand." http://encarta.msn.com... Short of that there are countries with their own economies. They engage in exchange. If they are both pareconish, the exchange would be planned, as it would be within economies, in light of full social costs and benefits. If one partner in trade is pareconish and the other is capitalist, many possibilities for the terms of exchange exist. One good and graphic one is that the parecon exchanges at either market rates, or at parecon rates, depending on which benefits the poorer country most. Why councils of fair control are an issue, I have no idea. Currency: Value is not determined by what people say something is worth, nor what worth someone says something has. The government regularly says that certain goods and services have a specific value. They can say that the value of the dollar is worth a certain amount but that really means nothing. Value isn't based on what people say, but on what people are willing to pay. Value is essentially a function of supply and demand. When you compare paper money with gold; the supply of gold is far more stable than the supply of paper money. The reason is simple. The supply of paper money can fluctuate quickly and can easily be overproduced. Gold or any other metal is difficult to extract so the supply does not quickly change. It remains more stable. They can use gold to trade with other countries. "In resoponse to your..." Again motivation for aid does not need to preclude others even within selfish motivation. Empathy in the case of, for example, a natural disaster, adequately removes any "bystander" bias. All that is needed is a policy of global aid in respect to resources. I am in no way, suggesting some idealistic utopian society, common goals and understanding are all that is required.