No, that's not what it means. First of all, your definition of "functioning government" (whatever it may be) is question-begging. Secondly, the assertion has never been that "lack of functioning government" is always, automatically perfect.
What? How can that be? In the absence of government all you have is lack of government. Anarchy is anarchy, right? If government is worse than anarchy in every case, then anarchy is better govern
, I'll freely admit that the examples of working anarchy of which I am aware pre-date any useful conception of "mental health" at all, and so this particular issue is something we have to address do novo.
How refreshing to see you actually admit that there are no current examples of anarchy "working". And what exactly do you suppose keeps anarchy from "working" even in regions where there is no government to prevent it from working? In other words, what is the evidence that it would ever work?
The US experiment was novel enough compared to even the Greek and Roman systems which inspired it that countless detractors asserted it wouldn't work because "it had never happened before", and yet here we are, with a system we all agree is better than anything which came before it, and which would not exist had arguments like yours been allowed to carry the day.
I appreciate the concession (however unintentional) that our constitutional form of government IS better than the Articles of Confederation and any examples of ancient anarchy of which you are aware.
But far more importantly, to claim that our system is so novel as to be something brand new is a claim only one largely ignorant of history could make with a straight face. Our constitutional system of government was built upon some 500 years of increasing self-governance and representation under British law starting with Magna Carta. Extending the franchise, representation, and rights to all (free)men rather than limiting such benefits to nobility only was a rather modest step forward. Not to mention drawing upon those parts of classical Greek and Roman law, plus (then) contemporary Swiss democracy with a few undemocratic tweaks to limit the power of the mob. Throw in a few expedient compromises to get both large and small States, as well as Northern and Southern States to sign on and our system was not nearly as novel as you would claim.
And yet, for drawing upon all that it did, it is still a miracle it worked rather than devolving into some kind of monarchy, or into a blood bath as did the French Revolution.
As I've noted, Marxism offers some great promise. So too did 19th century voluntary Utopianism that predated Marx. Marxism has been responsible for human suffering and death than every other philosophy in the history of the world. And other than a few small, highly homogeneous, generally highly religious groups, Utopianism has been an utter failure.
Well, some of us are ready to move into the next stage of human political evolution. Or we would be, if political troglodytes like you weren't holding us back thanks to your blind fear of uncharted waters. And the sad part is, those of us worth listening to aren't demanding (and in fact would oppose) violent revolution. We would begin the process with a rather non-sea-changing reduction of government's scope, followed by its gradual elimination from various facets of life, one after the other, until (hopefully) none is deemed necessary and so none remains. But no, you find that worthy and flailing and teeth-gnashing, because Fear, and God forbid people have coitus in the park.
I think you are becoming rather emotive. Else you'd recall that not only am I not standing in your way, but as a strict constitutionalist and believer in federalism, I would be quite supportive if your State were to adopt the most libertarian government that could still qualify as a "Republican form of government" as required under the constitution and then in turn your community adopted a full out anarchist society. I would be thrilled for such a thing to take place in your community and State. The rest of the nation could watch and see how well things worked out and then either follow suite if the promised benefits materialize, or, save 280 million persons a lot of heartache when your non-system is short on promised blessing and long on problems tht were never supposed to be.
I make no bones about my personal preference for a socially conservative society with far more rules than you think necessary, proper, or appropriate. So you'll understand I won't actively assist you in advancing an anarchist society. But I certainly won't stand in your way as long as you pick anyplace other than Utah to run your experiment. And upon strong evidence that it is working well, I may have to eat crow and my hat and follow your lead. OTOH, I reserve the right to decide that even if you think it is working well for you and yours, I may still prefer something a little different for me and mine. I think freedom means allowing different States and different communities to order themselves as they see fit, so long as certain, fundamental, enumerated rights are respected.
So, rather than attacking me with names like "troglodyte" you should spend your energy providing the nation and world with an example of how well your preferred social order works.....especially since you concede that there are exactly ZERO examples of any "working anarchy" in the world today despite lots of regions of the world where there is no government for all intents and purposes and thus there is, anarchy.
Charles
(Forgive me for not embedding the same video clip.)