Any chances for a country to be ruled by alternative rule will always be zero because -as many economists, philosophers and scientists claim- way various parts reality consist of interrelate is dominated by forces we won’t in a billion years have any chance of controling. An anarchist with aspirations to help build organizational structures not based on governing from above’s best bet is to get a clear picture of those areas of science that are leading way in terms of future progress.

In setting out to get any broad idea of what's driving our society’s progress, sciences open up a plethora of ideas for alternative ways governing reality. It is simply surprising what limited bearings these abundant ideas have on real life governments, business and any organised part of public life, given fact that many of them have been around for so long.

Talk of anarchization of structures that govern us is not new, yet it’s likely that we’ve become immune to it. To think anarchy has so far always boiled down to getting a pretty close idea of existing governing principles more than what they can be replaced with. Our tolerance levels for more general new ideas have also risen a lot due to rise of technology. So much so that we hardly are knocked over if someone supposes that doing away with governments altogether might suit us even better than adoption of another procedure based on true science.

Neither are alternative theories very much seen as subversive. Anyone with a subversive streak simply has to start shouting or display odd behavior and will still likely fail to be recognized as such. Even though naturally we sidestep systems that do not testify of authority from above as having any chance of being implemented, so long as you don't package subject with blatant “anti establishment’ labels, you have equal chances of getting as good a hearing as man who's proposing next major overhaul of national health system or so.

So in this sense, anarchy project is really rather simple. Compile ideas at random and start preaching them. Yet fact that none of us can imagine what a country is going to look like that's done away with government (history kindly doesn’t provide us with precedents) combined with fact that organising this is a real possibility is somehow again highly indicative again of state of play in developed world. It's anomaly of ‘Third World vs Developed World’ type. Poverty can't be simply reasoned away. We know that. But we’re less sure about subversives. Why? Because we don’t know at which levels they are active.

The shift in debate from real and tangible to a higher, almost metaphysical level, is something that many old time revolutionaries objected to but which modern anarchists simply take into their stride. The abstractization of reality somehow is objectionable when it comes to real life threatening situations like poverty in Africa and terrorist strikes on our cities, yet most anarchists, like mainstream, see fact that terrorists have forced us to take this portion of reality at face value not as a reason to abandon this domaine. To do so would be to abandon all options to make a difference, it is argued.

Anarchists and other proponents of alternative rule almost by definition are seen as destructive elements in a society. Yet old time and modern thinkers on subject might have some viable and decent ideas for future state organisation.

The unwieldy mess called internet gives rise to many new thoughts and also causes many people to revisit older ideals and alternative scene is resultantly more vibrant than ever. Its frequent intersection with mainstream only adds to clout of its substance. Going about researching possibilities for anarchy as a viable alternative to a current system of government ought to be as chaotic as we can make it if we want to keep in line with subject's concept. But we need to keep in mind that whilst we're digging, results are streamlined by algorithms.

Surfing web and drawing 'chaotically' from input of various disciplines on anarchy throws off quite interesting results. Taking anarchy at face value, you realise soon your hunch as to why it has such a negative connotation is right. To be fair, situations in which anarchy gets bad press, are almost invariably justified. Not only do anarchists rear often ugly heads when they have issues with incumbent governments that tie them together as an impromptu group of people for short stretches of times only, with a negative spirit as a combining agent, seemingly too weak to justify action. They often continue to destroy for sake of destruction only.

Anarchy and regime change go hand in hand. Most of times that anarchists are seen 'live' in action, they are -true to nature of their political inclination- not organised in any way and they generally serve only to achieve short term goals before they go back to their ordinary lives. Anarchists can have very justified opinions, but in many cases their action is nevertheless condemned by majority of fellow country men in favor of a new organised government.

The situation in Kyrgyzstan during onset of American invasion most recently brought topic to bear for renewed analysis and prior to that, Iraq invasion by American troops yielded fresh material for students of international law to break their heads over in years to come.

Due to rather short term nature of anarchy when it is a 'live' concept, there is a lot of obscurity around how systems based on no rule or anarchy would be able to function in a positive way. There is no area or country in world that has seen a situation of anarchy through for more than a decade by choice. Yet this does not mean that concept is not pondered by more selfrespecting scholars of all disciplines. A quick browse on internet reveals tons of information.