Studying input that various disciplines have on subject makes you understand some more why anarchy is rather impossible to achieve in any other way than unpremeditated violence it comes disguised as mostly.

Economists, experts if not inventors of models so heavily in use in all disciplines now, are refreshingly unscrupulous in doing away with state organisation as we know it today, yet alternatives they come up with turn out often more tedious than what governments propose anyway. However, economists do have most leeway it seems to argue case for greater thought of alternative rule. The current rise of libertarian thought that's by product of US global dominance goes hand in hand with ideas that economists have been mumbling on about for ages; leave world to its chaos and one way or other an order will emerge. Most of them base their systems on appropriation of property in some way or other, which might be a good idea. Basing your initial foundation around who owns what is proving a workable concept if you look at European Union. But somehow it feels a bit hollow and to only have economic principles ruling a society would essentially be degrading for humanity.

The ideas of other scholars provide more exciting input. Philosophers come out with by far most interesting ideas but it might be frustrating to gauge just how consequential or tennable their views are for rest of world. The current trend in academies is to loosen philosophical debate from belief that it is arguing about a real reality. This has opened up discipline to condemnation that their so called 'language games' is reducing philosophers to fools rather than wise men. Yet this dismissal is unfounded, because not all philosophers stick to idea that reality is merely known through language and even if this were case anyway, there would still be too much value in this to dismiss it.

From practical point of view however, philosophers come in most handy when structured thought about alternative society organisation is focused on technology or science or a mixture of both. The debate in sciences and in philosophy of science over whether reality is determined by interwoven forces or whether there is no relation between them -the battle between determinists and pluralists- is by far not resolved. Yet, given modern society's leaning to include anything to do with our immediate future, it is likely that not only will we see this debate feature prominently in any research on alternative ways of organising real life, but also in established system. In fact, anarchization of life has started ages ago, and we simply need to realise it.

All efforts by humans are geared toward mastering dizzying intricacies of life some way or other, but speed at which this takes place is a determining factor for success rate more than anything else. The sciences provide this speed, so it's no wonder that rest of disciplines are gathered around this consternation and have started to provide their tools in a scientific light.

That is why it is interesting to see what's going on in philosophy of science. It appears to yield ideas for finding decisive answers as to whether philosophers are right in stating that researching chances for a country to be ruled by alternative rule might be pointless because -as many economists, philosophers and scientists claim- way reality interrelates is determined by forces we do not have a chance to control. The debate is by dint of nature of perceived progress of sciences imperative for any initial thought on way society can be organised alternatively.

Some view moves of radicalists to mainstream politics as a positive transformation and it is surely to be hoped that organizations involved in decades-long strife in region that are now close to becoming involved in mainstream politics, will ultimately disarm. Yet their popularity might be evidencing real hardship on ground. Aside from what's driving islamist vote, Israel's reaction to a possible Hamas inclusion into PA might not be favorable and it might be unwilling to negotiate with Hamas leaders. But then, this might not turn out to be case. Prime Minister Sharon who is said by some to favor a peace process that is open ended might think he has a better negotiating partner in a Hamas partipated PA.

It is also going to be interesting what is going to be happening with Hizbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah leaders have expressed opposition to disarmament that's as strong as the Palestinian Hamas leaders. So far, this issue, groups' status as terrorist and their unwillingness to recognize Israel as a state has always deterred countries like US to deal with them as mature political entities. This is changing. Word in diplomatic corridors has it that State Department might acquiesce in Hizballah's entry into Lebanese politics if it abandons terrorism and severs its political and operational ties with Syria. This US recognition of Hizballah could serve as a precedent for US acceptance of a political role for Hamas.

So far it looks like every major move that islamist groups make by definition will continue to go accompanied with pledges to hold onto arms. But one ought to bear in mind that often public rhetoric is different than any private action. The leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah, recently reiterated that his group will not give up their weapons. In an interview with Reuters he said that his party will keep its weapons and will not give it up, noting that this decision is because of continued Israeli occupation and risks of occupation against his country. He even snubbed UN, saying that its Security Council resolution demanding Hizbullah to hand over its weapons is 'meaningless' and 'of no value'.

Meanwhile, in Iraq Al Qaeda's Jordanian-born leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi also recently publicly rejected a call from new Iraqi president for militants to lay down their arms. Calling new Iraqi leader President Jalal Talabani an agent of US and Jews, rebels said they would continue their strife until Sharia law was established in country and never forgive leader for his "infidelity" and "spilling of blood of Muslims". It is not clear whether statement, posted on a website used by Islamist militants is authentic. It is a smack in face however of Mr Talabani, who has been quite lenient to those Iraqi's who have taken to violence over past few years, saying a peaceful solution should be found with Iraqis who were 'led astray' by terrorism. He even invited them in to participate in democratic process and offered some convicted terrorists an amnesty.