Anarchy

[Mirage]

I absolutely believe in anarchy. Although to define oneself as an anarchist (in america) is a little futile because the ruling body has too many followers, money and guns to achieve it in our lifetimes.

Funny, Poetically Pathetic, that's the exact same conclusion I've come to as well. Because humans are social animals, we will always recognize certain individuals as leaders.
Individual humans are not very strong. It is through cooperation we have become the dominant species on this planet, in order to continue like that, we will need to continue working together as a larger unit. I don't think anarchism has anything to offer that's better than we already have.

I bolded 4 of your statements because they serve as the cliche, non-thinking response to any radical idea. Those are useless, and ill-based generalizations. How do you know those things? Who have you heard say them and why do you belive them? What about their scientific method makes you believe that they know what they're talking about? When saying things like that, it's better to say "i think"/"it seems" because in reality, there is no way for you to know it.

You're probably right it's better to say "I think". However, I didn't actually hear this from anyone (not to begin with, anyway. I've found other who agree later). It's more my own observations that have lead me to those conclusions. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, as there is to almost everything else in this world too.

Anyway, it seems you are arguing that absolutely everything is an anarchy already, and we're only arguing about where to draw some arbitrary line. Maybe we're not agreeing on the definition of anarchism?

I have been considering anarchy to be the complete lack of any governing body, no matter how big this body is, and that's what I think isn't possible, because no matter how small, I think there will be units that resemble what our government is today, (and that would break with absolute anarchy). I'm not against a lot of personal and economical freedom (in fact, I am leaning far more towards anarchism than towards authoritarianism), but I don't think it should (or can) be taken to the extreme.

As for the "humans are weak as an individual" statement, I think it's pretty correct. An important reason as to why we were enabled to create advanced tools that would make us superior to the other species on this planet is that we worked as a collective unit, where some individuals could specialize themselves in certain trades, while others would specialize in other trades. As we specialized in different trades, we basically just got more spare time on our hands, and were therefore enabled to spend much more time developing things that weren't bare requirements for our survival.