There is a large distinction between anarchy and the lack of a state. While statelessness is necessary for anarchy, it is not sufficient.
That said, you can have whatever opinion you want, but when your opinion goes against hundreds of years of political thought and literature, people will be slightly confused.
I guess I focused in on you placing statelessness as the primary condition. Statelessness isn't the goal or an end; it's a natural consequence of building a society without hierarchy.
I guess I focused in on you placing statelessness as the primary condition. Statelessness isn't the goal or an end; it's a natural consequence of building a society without hierarchy.
Well, first of all I didn't place statelessness as the primary condition. By "state-wide" I meant "country-wide" or "land-wide", not "government-wide".
And secondly, I don't know of any other examples, but in my own country's history we had an anarchist society which had clearly defined hierarchy (that doesn't mean that people couldn't move between different levels of that hierarchy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine)
true, it wasn't probably a true anarchist society, but it is as close as it gets, again as I said, don't know any better.
That said, you can have whatever opinion you want, but when your opinion goes against hundreds of years of political thought and literature, people will be slightly confused.