I am an anarchist. This is good. And peaceful. Not chaos.

“My political opinions,” J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote, “lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs).

“The most improper job of any man,” Tolkien went on, “is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”

“A consistent peace activist,” philosopher Roderick T. Long wrote, “must be an anarchist.”

“Anarchism,” said Edward Abbey, “is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.”

Anarchism, I’m sure you know, has a bad rap.

In fact, I’m sure most people would be appalled at the above quotes… and the mere thought of anarchism being a “good thing.”

(Especially when they find out that the Lord of the Rings mastermind considered himself an anarchist!)

The collective consciousness holds the belief -- with the help, of course, of the media and Hollywood -- that anarchy is synonymous with chaos, destruction and terrorism.

More and more, however, despite that big red flashing sign from the mind-molders which reads “STEER CLEAR,” we find ourselves dipping our brains into the philosophy…

There are two sides, we realize, of any story. And anarchism, at least this week, is sunnier than most think.

Anarchapulco, according to its website, is “the world’s first and largest international anarcho-capitalist (ancap) conference.

“Held yearly in Acapulco,” the website reads, “ancaps from around the world gravitate to Mexico for three days of speeches, presentations, panels, debates, musical acts, parties and networking with the intention of creating a freer world and seven billion governments on Earth.”

So… what is anarchism?

It’s derived from the Greek anarchos, which means to “have no ruler.”

 For that reason, says Doug Casey in an interview with International Speculator, “Anarchism is the gentlest of all political systems.

“It contemplates no institutionalized coercion. It’s the watercourse way, where everything is allowed to rise or fall naturally to its own level.

“An anarchic system is necessarily one of free-market capitalism. Any services that are needed and wanted by the people -- like the police or the courts -- would be provided by entrepreneurs, who’d do it for a profit.”

In free-market anarchy, says Casey, all usual functions of the state (yes, all) would be run privately, including police and courts: “the police would likely be subsidiaries of insurance companies, and courts would have to compete with each other based on the speed, fairness, and low cost of their decisions.

Bomb-throwers and chaos inflictors, says Casey, are not anarchists: “Chaos is the actual opposite of anarchy. Anarchy is simply a form of political organization that does not put one ruler, or ruling body, over everyone in a society. Whether that’s actually possible is a separate matter. This is what it means. And I see it as an ideal to strive for.

“But,” he concedes, “I never said a truly free, anarchic society would be a utopia; it would simply be a society that emphasizes personal responsibility and doesn’t have any organized institutions of coercion. Perfect harmony is not an option for imperfect human beings. Social order, however, is possible without the state. In fact, the state is so dangerous because it necessarily draws the sociopaths -- who like coercion -- to itself.

“What holds society together is not a bunch of strict laws and a brutal police force -- it’s basically peer pressure, moral ‘suasion, and social opprobrium. Look at a restaurant. The bills get paid not because anybody is afraid of the police, but for the three reasons I just mentioned.”

What’s your take? Could we survive without a state? Is the complete absence of government superior to limited government? Are you, as they say, a “minarchist” who believes in limited government? Or do your sympathies lean, like Tolkien, to the anarchist?