1.When a group, society or state depends on another group or society for its wellbeing, security and continued existence it becomes subordinate to the other group. In essence the more powerful society controls the weaker one. The majority of states are capable of existing and surviving entirely on their own, though with much lower living standard. They are independent. I don't see why anyone would want to establish a client "state" or society.
2.The only anarchistic societies I've heard about have survived entirely on farming and related small industries, parasitism (squatting, piracy and etc) or just survives on the state that preceded it and then collapses soon afterwards. All of these are obviously unable to support a good living standard.
3.How would an anarchistic society organize the trade of resources with others if it's extremely unorganized and decentralized? Millions of peoples lives depend on getting things such as medicine, electricity, fuel and other precious resources on a very tight schedule. Why would neighboring states even bother with trade when they could just invade them and take anything of value since the anarchistic society would be to weak to put up any serious resistance?
4.Please elaborate. I think it's pretty obvious that violence in necessary to protect someones private property. If someone would barge into my home and take my TV without my permission they should obviously be punished by the legal system, though such a system couldn't exist in an anarchistic society.
5How would one organize the distribution of private property, with the "recognition of utility", on an absolutely huge scale counting millions if not billions of people? Who should decided what food you get to eat? Do you get your medicine on time or is it the neighbor that gets to survive this week?
Again, please elaborate.
6.Again, please elaborate. Should people be able to go wherever they want? Should i be able to walk into your bedroom and watch you and a girl go at it?
1. Trade has historically been essential to prosperity. Nation-states engage in trade as well. This does cause a condition of inter-dependence. I think sometimes the trade can be exploitative, but this is when it's formalized in rules and such (see the WTO). People trading of their own free will have no reason to make a trade that isn't in their self-interest.
2. The collapse is usually the result of destruction by an outside force, not an internal collapse. As I said, the "downside" of anarchy is it doesn't have a response to those who choose to use violence.
3. Spontaneous Order. If you're not familiar with this phrase, see Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."
4. Ok, I see I have to elaborate on what I mean by Anarchy. I think perhaps some things that are obvious to me (things I've thought for years) are alien concepts to people and thus require a bit of a gestalt shift to understand. Let's say a government collapses, and people continue to live and work without government. Then, a group of thugs with guns decides to start enforcing a monopoly on their drug trade. They enforce rules about who can sell what wear, they extort "protection" taxes, they redistribute wealth. What is this group? A government. At it's most basic, a government is a person or group of persons who use violence or the threat of violence to enforce their will on others. Some people require a government to have a monopoly on the use of force, but in reality this has never existed. Even in the USA, there are smaller government, i.e, bloods, organized crime, etc. who excersize de facto control over neighborhoods. The USA, as a nation state, is also constantly competing with other governments externally (wars). I don't agree with the anarcho-capitalists, because competing governments (like you see in Somalia, or alot of other african countries) tend to produce worse outcomes then more monopolized governments.
So when I talk of anarchy, I mean it as a personal moral belief. The weapons of an anarchist are reason, compassion, etc. My anarchism is more in line with Gandhi's or Tolstoi's then the Libertarian Socialists.
To answer your question about the voyeur, I would say you should lock your door. But obviously, imagining an anarchy implies an advanced moral code that includes respect for other people's privacy.
Anarchism for me is like, what kind of future do I want to work towards? What is right and wrong? And for me, the answer gets down to non-violence.
5. Again, spontaneous order. It's funny you mention food, because that is a specific quote from Adam Smith. Something like "It is not by the compassion of the baker, or the dictates of the king, that you fail to go hungry. It is the baker's self interest. Even in today's society, it is not the government that makes sure you get your medicine or food.
