[artonge]

> It was not a time of freedom, but anarchy, where bands of barbarians could roam into your lands and pillage everything.

Please, do not use anarchy as a synonym of disorder, violence or war.

Pity a blog post about defining a word and an idea starts with a wrong definition of a word and an idea.

i.e: Anarchy is about self governance, which theoricaly leads to more freedom than whatever we have now in most country.

[moron4hire]

> theoricaly

Please, do not use theory as a synonym for hypothesis. Evidence has failed to validate the anarchy hypothesis at scale.

[umilegenio]

Well, as I said the article is my opinion. So, let's agree to disagree.

In my experience real anarchy, in the way you describe, has never been achieved. So, when I hear that it reminds me when people say that real comunism is great, it is just that the URSS was bad, fake communism (it happens here in Italy, not sure if that happens where you are). The only historical anarchy that I know is the one where there is no control. Maybe we can do a better version in the future, but for now that it is what happened.

To be fair, I am Italian, so maybe I am overreacting on the whole barbarians thing.

[GoblinSlayer]

USSR had democracy too: decisions were made per votes. Should we take that as a canonical example of democracy?

>The only historical anarchy that I know is the one where there is no control.

Do you want to say you can't live without Big Brother controlling you?