Anarchy

It seems to me that the biggest problem with an anarchist system is the size of populations. Take China or some other country of similar size, turn it anarchist, and you'd get complete chaos. Take some little self-sufficient town out in the middle of nowhere where everybody gets along pretty well, take away from it the influence of any kind of state or government, and that pretty much just takes away all the beauracratic crap they have to deal with.

Who's to say that people can't get along when a small community -- every single person who wants to live there -- decides to work for their own individual interests and yet agrees to trade their goods or whatever with each other according to their own judgement and terms, and everybody that decides to build this community has similar codes of ethics and philosophy that promote prosperity.

But with the way things are today, you'd have a lot of trouble going out somewhere and finding a spot of land worth settling such a community on that's not already controlled by some government; to my knowledge, at least.

Now why couldn't that logically work? I don't buy this pessimistic crap that people simply can't work with each other in a way where everyone is capable of their own happiness in an environment of complete freedom. I don't buy that not everyone has that drive and ambition somewhere in 'em. I think it just seems otherwise today because of the cultures that come from the influence of a large population: all of this welfare and handout culture.

What are your views, 4chan? Discuss.

If we can divide former territories into districts, and even metropolitan cities into districts, I see no reason why representative voting blocks can't get the same treatment. 60000 sounds like a good number, divide the spots into smaller bundles around 60k, maybe 20k for rural areas.

>>24
Okay, let's just say 60k citizens per represenative.  If the U.S. population is around 300,000,000 then that works out to 5000 represenatives in the House.  At this point sessesions would just be too long and nothing would get done.  Although the prospect of a legislature not being able to do anything is inticing, most people would agree that they should be able to pass some laws.

>>25

Sessesion would be too long only under the government we have now. Things have to radically changed from the ground up.

Why not have a hierarchy, each step branching off to 80 people

1: President
2: Ministers and governors
3: Secretaries
4: Civil servants
5: Government employees (here the 80 rule ends, unless more than 40000000 people work for the government)
6: Citizens

Imagine that, a conversation with your friend who drills holes in the road could be only 4 steps away from the president!