Anarchy: The Most Modern Form of Government?

"Anarchy" was explained to me as meaning "no king" or "no ruler." It does not mean "no law" or "no order."

Imagine. Locals elect representatives to go pass laws. The people follow these laws, or contest them and a high Court decides if the laws conform to the Constitution or not.

The jungle-mammalian need for a primary, "alpha" leader is what, exactly, in a post-modern society?

Imagine towns without mayors. States without governors. The United States without a president.

Balance of powers? The balance of power is impeachment of really outrageous legislators, and the election of hopefully-better legislators to replace the inept ones. These representatives pass, or decline, laws, and the rest of us obey these laws, or get fined, or go to jail.

Where is the President, or the Governor, or the Mayor, when I am driving on my own lane down the road and you are driving in your own lane? Where are the dominant personalities when we are lining up at the Postal office? Who is my leader when I am shopping at Barnes & Noble?

Do we need chiefs any more? What purpose do they serve today? Do they simply give initiative-challenged numb-skulls someone to obey, or to fear?

I submit that Americans have outgrown a genuine need for a central Leader. The Rule of Law, adjusted by elected representatives of the People and enforced by professional police, should be sufficient in a moderately well-informed society.

If the People tell their representatives that they want to send the military after some nation or group ... it's war. If not, it's not. More taxes? Higher federal salaries? A military conscription?

I say, do away with central, primal leaders. Let genuine individual accountability and liberty work itself out in legislatures and courts. When the overall "average" of all the fringes and the mainstreams are taken into consideration, things that really matter to a majority of people are acted upon, and issues of less importance die from lack of attention.