This is a discussion that was hinted earlier.  I'm curious.  Can anyone provide me with a situation where world-wide anarchy, as an economic model, would lead to a better quality of life than what we have now?

Sure, it can work with small groups of people but can it sustain itself in a big picture environment?

I say no.  My mind is open.

I cant imagine it ever working. I said so once to someone, and asked if the removal of government was so good, why was somalia in such disarray. They actually replied that it was because there was still some government control.
Im pretty sure everyone knows someone that would commit a crime, petty or otherwise, if they knew the law wouldn't punish them. With that alone I cant see how anarchy could ever be envisaged as a possible solution. You could argue that the local community would take care of such issues, but to me thats not anarchy, thats greater regional autonomy, which is something that I dont think is a bad idea.

Well, there is total anarchy in countries like Somalia, ran by warlords that make their own rules. During the Russian revolution (Bolshevik revolution) was anarchy during the fighting and political dissent. In Ukraine, (Crimea) there have been complete revolts under Russian occupancy. Just saying.

BluemageKyle : I don't understand.  You're just saying it exists or you're just saying it's a better model than capitalism, socialism, or communism?

And some would say it's not anarchy from an economic standpoint in Crimea or during the Russian Revolution.  The government is losing control but trade is/was still conducted as usual.

warmaker :

Anarchy will never work. Children need parents and parents need parents. Too many people are too stupid.

There have been attempts leading toward anarchy, such as the Paris Commune. The Catalan Republic of the early 1930's is probably the closest a region has ever come to a true anarchy, and it functioned reasonably well in the short time it existed. Anarchy probably can work on a minor scale, but the problem with these small areas is that they inevitably get run over and stamped out by larger more powerful forces. States traditionally take a very poor view of regions breaking off and declaring independence.

You do love me. When would world wide Anarchy work? Never. The idea of the world being connected under anything is impossible. Anarchism works best and in most cases only in small communities like towns. Anarchism is not for people that likes to sit on their butts all day, typing on their ivory keyboard with their nose in the air before they go to work at mcdonalds. If you are lazy and good for nothing, you die. If you have 20 kids and can't feed them, guess what happens. Anarchism is about self reliance and mutual respect. You will have to grow your own food, keep up your own live stock, and so on. You could get help from others in your community with something you can't do but for the most part you are on your own. For example, I am not a construction kind of guy, I have tried to learn the skill but can't, I could contract out some help and in return, help the people helping me with their chores. 

Now, what do I believe? I believe in Anarcho-Communism. I don't believe in private property, money, and classes. My manifesto is a bit different from most Anarcho-Communists. I believe in a small, locally elected group to govern business. This would include things like public works (water department, electric, ect) and so on. Everyone is responsible to grow their own food and raise livestock. Each person may pay a tax of food to the government to be distributed to the public workers. If you wish to live a mountain man style life, you may not have to pay any tax because you will not be using any services. I only believe in two laws, one against unjustified or unprovoked murder, and one against rape, in which I believe in an eye for an eye policy on both accounts.

I will leave it there due to the fact that I am sick of typing.

Well, I'm seeing a lot of negative input here... never fear, Ryuu's here to flip the script
I personally think that anarchy is the best possible way to run the world in the grand scheme of things. I mean, think about it: the way society is run today, the vast majority of the people on earth are held under the thumb of a privileged 1%. Over-population is rampant, hunger is on the rise, and our natural resources are disappearing like a bottle of vodka at an AA meeting. And who is to blame for all of this? Gang members on drugs? Random events? Aliens? No, the truth is much simpler and much more bone-chilling... the entire structure of human society is to blame. The concept of trying to protect everyone from every possible harm, IMHO, is stupid and short sighted. Yes, the immediate results seem to be a peaceful, well maintained society, but in the long run were setting ourselves up to destroy this planet and everything on it.

however... if the world accepted anarchy... granted, many people on earth most likely wouldn't survive the transition, but it would re-introduce that all important law of nature (survival of the fittest) back into the world. Humans as they exist today have squashed and summarily ignored this all-important law of nature in favor of enforcing their own laws instead. What they fail to realize is that by enforcing their own laws instead of the laws of nature, they are throwing the world out of balance. Our world existed perfectly fine on its own, without law, for hundreds of millions of years, without the "help" of laws that only benefit a very small percent of humans anyway, and don't benefit the earth at all. It wasn't until humans came along that pollution, over-population, and global warming had any effect on this world whatsoever.

so, now that my mild rant is out of my system, ill summarize: anarchy and chaos are the natural order of things. "order", as it exists today, will destroy the planet (granted, perhaps not in our lifetime), and when it does happen, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Nature can inflict far crueler punishments for breaking its laws than mankind could ever dream of.

and to reply to txgangsta's statement, the fact that too many people are too stupid is an argument for anarchy, not opposing it.

Ocelot Ryuu :

What you're advocating is called "social darwinism". Let those that can't survive die off so better humans are the only one's left. There was another guy who advocated that, and he kinda started WWII. His name was "Hitler".

There's also a big flaw in your system. Lets say the world begins anarchy. You know who will come out on top? Those that band together. It's better to work together. Equally, the biggest group will be most able to face the smaller groups. These groups will claim territories, make alliances, and expand, divide, organize differently.

Ya, people will just make new governments, and they will win.

I don't deny that "the vast majority of people on earth are held under the thumb of a privileged 1%" or that "our world existed perfectly on its with, without law, for hundreds of millions of years". I deny that anarchy will help any of that.

Also, the reason I said anarchy won't work because people are too stupid is because "many people on earth most likely wouldn't survive the transition". The stupid people matter. Instead of ditching government, we should use that great leviathan to steer mankind toward greatness.

Txgangsta :
While I agree with most of what you are saying, Ocelot was suggesting that we don't care for the weak, nazi germany decided to kill the weak. that is an important difference.
The comparison of peoples views to Nazism is too common and typically misguided.

thenumberone : Isn't Nazi short for National Socialism anyway?  But, yes, they were social darwinists and anti- anything that supported Jewish materialism.

It's an interesting history and I think most people don't exactly understand what actually happened.

warmaker :
Yes, they ironically called them selves the national socialist party, yet hatted communism.
Not that they are the same, but they are similar to he extent that such hate is pretty unfounded. Then again, similarity never stops hate.
Whats interesting is that Hitler was not the first to blame the Jews, it was an age old trick. It still is. If there are problems at home, blame someone else, or else distract the nation.
Putin is more popular in Russia after the incidents recently in the east. Thatcher and the Argentinian junta were more popular during the falkland wars. And even today if something bad happens, instead of questioning why the area was not better defended by the government, the blame is shifted to ethnic or racial minority's, homosexuals or foreigners.
England was the first nation to expel all the Jews, and the UK was the first country to utilise concentration camps. Equally, the USA threw many innocent Japanese into camps before war even started to avoid potential saboteurs.
Its easy to imagine Germany were a unique evil, but the truth is, they were simply more successful than those before them.
Militarily, Germany preyed on weaker nations to gain land and resources. The only reason they lost is because big powerful nations, like the UK, America, and Russia, joined to defeat them.
If anarchy prevailed, and Germany came to be, they would have met far less resistance to their aggression.

Before the roman empire there were no real empires in western Europe. It was as close to anarchy as could really be considered feasible. Out of that the Romans carved an empire spanning a thousand years (depending on how you categorise it).
Anarchy relies on the goodness of people, and if you really believe in that, then id suggest you leave your front door open when you go out and see what happens.

warmaker : Yes, the Nazi party is called the "National Socialist Party". That is a little confusing or misleading for some people. Nazi party had nothing to do with socialism, they took their political ideals from the Fascist Party that took control of Italy, lead by Mussolini.

Hitler didn't want to kill off the weak to create a master race, he believed that the white aryan race was already the master race. He thought that the race should control the world because they were better than the rest of the "sub humans". 

But back on topic. Anarchy for everyone isn't freedom for everyone. To push beliefs on someone and make them live your way isn't free no matter if you think your way is free or not. I would never push my beliefs on someone and don't respect those who try to push theirs on me. 

It would really only work for loners, or in small societies, I feel. I mean, it could work in large societies, but people would obviously not be as prosperous as they are right now, and some would definitely decide to truly take advantage of others when there are no laws in place to protect them.

warmaker : I sort of accidentally looked over the notification of your reply. Apologies.
I believe anarchy is nowhere near effective (which I feel isn't a word I should use to describe it, but oh well.) communism, capitalism, or socialism. Now my grandparents and great-grandparents actually were all working in the Soviet union. My great uncle working in the KGB, actually (Something I am not proud of my ancestry though, quite frankly.), anyways, my grandfather was left to die actually in Afghanistan actually during the end of the cold war, about two years after my mother was born (my mother was the last of three children.), by the Soviets. 
In parts of the communist government there was so much corruption it was pretty much anarchy from what my older relatives have told me. Just to shed some light on communism sorta being anarchy, I'll point out the whole Leninism view for government was a system that worked everyone's life out. Where they lived, what their job was, and their food portioning, ect. The "system" was very easy to break and abuse at that time. 

thenumberone :

There's a small difference between "letting die" and "killing". Intentionally obstructing the regular means for goods like food and basic medication isn't "letting die". In this case, the action of creating anarchy would directly cause many people's deaths. If an act indirectly leads to someone's death (e.g. pulling the plug doesn't cause death, the machine was preventing death), it's not killing, it's simply letting nature take it's course. 

Anarchy will only work if people WON'T kill, or steal. Anarchy means that no one is above any person (In the area of leadership) in other words, there is no police, no mayor ect. No person, is good on their own. One often thinks of doing wrong, even though they won't always. Most don't because they don't want to ruin the work they did, or for the large majority, they don't want to get caught. If police didn't exist, crime would be bad enough that I wouldn't walk out of my front door, without a gattling gun and an armored car, with an escort...
To summarize one needs people to be perfect, before anarchy would be a viable model.

Txgangsta :
Its a difference none the less.
Is not helping them the same as obstructing them?If they manage to get what they need and are allowed it?
Don't get me wrong, I disapprove of casting people out for being weaker, but for clarity's sake what was suggested was not as extreme as you appeared to take it.

At the end of the day, I think the best desired features of anarchy could be achieved by simply giving regions a great deal of autonomy, reinforcing local government and community.

thenumberone :

Ok, fair enough. I exaggerated a bit, but I wanted my point across.

And I am a huge supporter of local autonomy. I talk bad about the federal government all day long, but really I just want what they do in the power of states/provinces/whatever and communities.

I wouldn't mind an incredibly small form of leader ship but the thing is that...

You would have to accommodate those who are meant to follow rather than lead. They want to listen to someone.
I don't get that mentality but I know some people who have it.

Anarchy would work if people were responsible and had basic commonsense witch sadly nobody has.