[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Thor142

Anarchy and statism are incompatible, which explains why statists must mislead people by defining anarchy as chaos and disorder. Somebody once declared that the only two political theories that are completely consistent are anarchy and totalitarianism. Anarchy fully embraces the concept of self, totalitarianism fully rejects that concept. Statism always degenerates into totalitarianism.
Darrell Anderson

It's cool you found a quote. I read the rest of it, and I don't disagree with the author. Anarchy doesn't HAVE to be chaos and disorder, but it always degenerates into it. Outside of small, isolated pockets of population, there is no successful example of an anarchist society. Relying on the masses to govern themselves and be decent to each other is just as doomed to fail, in my eyes, as is allowing an elite group of untouchables to make all our decisions for us. To act the way that would make an anarchist society successful, would require the human race to go against their basic instincts. Look what happens in places when Rule of Law collapses. It turns violent.

Anyway, that's a little off topic. I believe there can be a balance. I don't believe it has to be all or nothing. I believe if I was forced to make a choice between all or nothing on one side of the spectrum, I would choose anarchy. But until that is the only choice, I believe that government can be both small in scope AND effective. Governments getting out of control is only the fault of the people under them. Those people give the government power because they don't believe people can govern themselves.