Instead of giving a fractured point-by-point reply, I'm going to give a wholistic response that hopefully addresses everyone:
My (assumptions/)'ideology' is basically just this:
* When people's needs (survival, security & emotional development) are met (aka they are "Conscious") then they will generally be decent and helpful to one another and will pursue mutually beneficial goals. (Steve = Poster child). Deliberately antisocial behaviour is almost always founded in one of these unmet needs.
* The primary purpose of Government is to be the final authority. It generally fulfils other functions too, but that's the one that definitively makes a body a government.
* To a large extent, people feel the need for a final authority because they don't trust the people around them to act decently. (Yet they assume the final authority will).
* Attempting to create decent behaviour through mandate and use of force is ultimately ineffective as (a) compliance may require a stage of development that people haven't reached and (b) it inspires people to challenge authority and 'game the system'. (There are enforced laws against murder and speeding; how effective has that been at preventing them?).
* A focus on supporting people to reach the stage of development where they
want to be decent to each other will be considerably more effective.
* If you give people the freedom to do anything they want, then it's important that you have people who want to be benevolent.
* Perfection is not possible: there will always be antisocial people, but a society of primarily Conscious people will deal with this in a compassionate and practical way rather than addressing the issue in a fear-based way[1].
* Conscious people will tend to 'spread' benevolence and consciousness through support and inspiration, and also through a focus on raising Conscious children. (vide Steve again
).
* Such a society would also focus strongly on developing areas of improvement such as education, physical & mental health care, communication and collaboration technologies, automation technologies etc.
* The majority in a society tends to maintain itself through peer pressure. (Therefore not all people in a society need be Conscious for Consciousness to remain dominant).
Those are the general principles. Onto more specific 'implementation' issues:
* Even in such a society of Conscious people there would still be disagreements and cross-purposes. Generally people will come to agreements on their own, but sometimes assistance from an expert mediator may be called for. The mediator would jointly be the
employee of the disputing parties (rather than an adjudicator who could impose fiat judgments) and would work with both parties to seek a "win-win or no deal" solution. (Brutha, in your example I suggest concerned individuals on all sides get together and improve the bypass road so City B doesn't
need to shortcut through City A).
* No externally imposed law doesn't mean no social convention. eg. Driving speeds will be governed by shared example, common sense and mutual concern rather than law. (Again, note that pretty much everyone exceeds the legal limit when it
is mandated.
* An agressive organised militant force should never arise within such a society because (a) everyone should be at least reasonably happy with the status quo, (b) individuals who were unhappy (and why would you form an army if you were happy!?) would be noticed and supported to become happy. An aggressive organised force from
outside the society could certainly be a problem. Ultimately you would hope to 'uplift' all surrounding societies too, but in the interim it may be necessary to seek protection by other nations in exchange for goods and services.
To be honest, I'm not sure this ideology is, in fact, called "Anarchy" - that may be throwing some people off?
Some people in this thread believe people aren't capable of such a society in the near future. Some believe people aren't capable of it at
all. I really hope both groups are wrong. Our current societies are destroying the world at such a rate that I suspect we have mere decades before it's too late.
[1] Yes, fear can sometimes result in good outcomes such as quitting smoking. However, even in these rare cases, the same outcomes will come from making a Conscious, motivated decision; and a Conscious, motivated decision won't carry all the negative side-effects of a fear-based one like stress, over-simplification of issues, inability to make reasoned judgements etc.
In fact, people are often having trouble quitting smoking
because of fear (not to downplay the physical addiction): "What if I'm not strong enough to get by without my smokes!?", "What if my smoking friends no longer want to hang with me?", etc. Sure, you can (maybe) overcome that fear with a larger burst of fear ("If I don't quit, I'll die!!") but then you're setting up a neverending internal battle. As soon as one set of fears looks like dominating, the other will panic and return with renewed vigor.
Finally, what looks like a fear-based decision, may not be ; "I don't want to die!" is a very different motivation to "I want to live!". I suspect the latter would be far more effective in the long term because it's a "running towards" goal rather than a "running away" one...