So… yes, in practice, because you can’t create equality of means, resources, or power.
Even if you could (for the sake of argument) make all other things equal, you can’t redistribute human bodies to be equal (in age/mass/height/arm reach/strength/etc), and you can’t redistribute willingness to kill for personal gain to be equal.
There will always be individuals who have both the means and the will to do violence in order to enrich themselves. Without some system of enforcement to prevent this (e.g. the state) the outcome is always might makes right.
Anarchy in the context of anarchism doesn’t refer to a complete absence of rules or their enforcement. On the contrary, anarchism rejects any form of higher power (aka might), and focuses on building communities in a way that makes them resilient to it.
I’m not sure I really understand your argument though. Societies and communities were able to have rules preventing violence long before the existence of nation states. Not to mention that your definition of the state is ironic in and of itself: We need violence (the state) to prevent violence (by non-state actors). The state itself in this definition (which I agree with) is itself following the method might makes right.
So… yes, in practice, because you can’t create equality of means, resources, or power.
Even if you could (for the sake of argument) make all other things equal, you can’t redistribute human bodies to be equal (in age/mass/height/arm reach/strength/etc), and you can’t redistribute willingness to kill for personal gain to be equal.
There will always be individuals who have both the means and the will to do violence in order to enrich themselves. Without some system of enforcement to prevent this (e.g. the state) the outcome is always might makes right.
Anarchy in the context of anarchism doesn’t refer to a complete absence of rules or their enforcement. On the contrary, anarchism rejects any form of higher power (aka might), and focuses on building communities in a way that makes them resilient to it.
I’m not sure I really understand your argument though. Societies and communities were able to have rules preventing violence long before the existence of nation states. Not to mention that your definition of the state is ironic in and of itself: We need violence (the state) to prevent violence (by non-state actors). The state itself in this definition (which I agree with) is itself following the method might makes right.