Talk:Rational anarchism

State or no state
This article appears, under commonly-held definitions, to contradict itself. Firstly, it states that anarchy must be "balanced" by some sort of government; this seems oxymoronic. However, this is only in the same way that anarcho-capitalism is considered to be oxymoronic on the grounds that anarchism precludes capitalism; anarcho-capitalists have different defitions. Is there some other definitions of "state" and "anarchy" that rational anarchists use? It only confuses matters more that the rational anarchist goes on to say that the state/government doesn't exist. If something doesn't exist, how can it balance anarchy? Skomorokh incite 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see a contradiction in the article. The premise that I understand is that a rational anarchist believes that the idea of a 'state' does not exist (by which is meant that a 'state' is not a separate entity but a bunch of separate, independent people) and that responsibility rests with the individual, but recognizes that some form of organization is necessary for an orderly and just society. 144.92.23.226 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)