Is anarchy (a society without legitimized aggression) a workable societal system?

those who want control will always attempt to seize it by force without an organized resistance present. organized resistance takes some form of governance, hence anarchy is impossible

The cavemen seemed to be ok with it

If everybody obeyed ONE law, we wouldn't need goverment or any other laws.

The Golden Rule.

Unfortunately, without laws many people would revert to the law of the jungle.

Our government has WAY overstepped their authority, and we need new blood in DC.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

These are not just empty words from some old guys in whigs, they have serious meaning.

Anarchy isn't a society without legitimized aggression. Anarchy is the absence of society.

How so?

Anarchy is the absence of government, order, law, etc. Without any organization, how can society exist?

Through voluntary association?!?! Why do we need coercion to have society? Coercion seems anti social to me.

You're saying the world's occupations should be entirely composed of volunteers. Okay, let's go with that for a minute. There's a reason many volunteer organizations don't work to their potential. If there's absolutely no incentive to do something (with the exception of maybe emergency volunteers), why wouldn't people just stay at home (assuming people have actually built homes)?

Voluntary association does not mean working for free. It means people only associate with other people on their own volition. There is no coercion. People are free to trade and hire out their goods and services.

But that still only means most people would simply not do anything. In an anarchy, people have 100% freedom to do whatever they want...including the freedom to say "Screw it" to pretty much everything--and that includes the laws that prohibit theft, murder, and a million other crimes that would be the norm in an anarchy. I understand your want for a free-er society, but that doesn't mean we have to dip into anarchy to do it.

Without a government people would still face serious consequences for theft and murder. There would still be people to punish them. The difference would be that those people wouldn't derive their wages/salaries from theft(i.e. taxation).

Then that's not really an anarchy, it's more of what we have now, just with toned down law and economic systems.

Anarchy is just society without government. Anarchy is not chaos. Many people think anarchy leads to chaos, but they fail to take into account the economic incentives of everyone working together through voluntary association. The division of labor is really what brings a peaceful harmony to society, not thugs that steal from you while telling you it's for your own good.

But anarchy IS pretty much chaos. Without a governing body, decisions will be made by who? Some random guy? The problem with 'voluntary association' is that with no actual incentive to do anything, people WON'T do anything. You said that people will still get paid. Paid by who? Where is this money coming from? Again, what you seem to want isn't really an anarchy. It's the exact same thing we have now. The only difference is with your thing the government has less actual authority--which, truth be told, isn't that bad an idea.

People will make decisions about their own lives. Mostly how it is today with the exception of government looters and thugs. (Looters being the tax collectors, and thugs being the arbitrary and ridiculous law enforcers. Enforcing an individual right is not being a thug, however.)

The benefit of the division of labor is plenty of incentive to work together. Do you actually believe that the government runs the economy? All the wealth we currently have is due to the same forces I'm saying will work in a world without a violent hegemonic institution in society. People work to better their lives and exchange the fruits of their labor for things they want more.

Free-market money would most likely be gold or silver. People would pay each other for goods and services with it. So, the money would be all the silver and gold that is already mined, and will be mined in the future.

If you study economics, all this becomes perfectly clear. I suggest you go to mises.org

Hmm, I'm going to just take your word for it that this makes sense if I pay a visit to an economics class. Have a great week. :)

Good luck and have fun!

:D

there would be many, many ways for an individual to take advantage of it.

There are many, many, ways for an individual to use government to their advantage. In an anarchist society, they would only have voluntary means.

The government should exist to protect the rights of it's citizens from domestic and foreign threat and to provide justice. So you're left with the judicial system, police, the army, and possibly firefighters.

So most services can be done away with.

Why can't these services be funded through voluntary exchange? Wouldn't competition bring more efficiency and fairness to the judicial system and law enforcement?

Anarchy = No laws. No laws = no law enforcement.

I think it goes more like this:
Anarchy = no government. No government = no arbitrary laws.
The difference between an "arbitrary" law and a "natural" law is that an arbitrary law require aggression to enforce. For example, the law against smoking pot. The police commit acts of violent aggression to confiscate or imprison the "offenders". This would be an arbitrary law. On the other hand a natural law would be the law against burglary. If someone breaks into your house, it doesn't take any aggression to enforce the law, just defensive violence.