I'm well aware of what anarchy is. There are as many brands of anarchy as there are toothpicks available in the grocery store. Saying that someone believes in anarchy because they don't want taxes, or vice-versa, is a half-assed argument. And certainly not germane to the main thrust of my point.
I found it a bit amusing that in one quote you come to me with a Wikipedia definition of anarchy which talks about a political philosophy and in other quote to someone else you mention that anarchy can be found in African countries such as Somalia. I think maybe you don't really understand what anarchy is, but that's understandable because it is an oft-misused word in the English language at least. BTW - I've been to some pretty bad parts of Africa. Not Somalia, but Nigeria, Angola and the Congo (the three worst places I've been there - the Ivory Coast was actually pretty cool and northern Africa is just hot as hell although it's cool to go see the Roman ruins...). I don't think even in Somalia you could say there is anarchy, and certainly not in much of the rest of the bad spots. What there is are people who have decided they would "Lord" it over the others. In Somalia it is from a power vacuum, in many other places (such as Nigeria and Angola) it's a bit more organized. But in Somalia, no one is "self-governed" within a "voluntary institution". War lords are NOT anarchism.
But I come from a country that holds as one of its highest reasons for revolting against the British in the 18th century as "taxation without representation." The pure immorality of people who govern a nation and don't really give a rat's ass what their policies do because they are above the crowd in whatever fashion.
I watch as my own country rejects that notion on many levels in modern times. I suppose I can't fault Argentina for misunderstanding the same thing, but watch out - the poor here will understand one day, lead by people from the middle class who are fed up with such rampant dishonesty and greed.
