Anarchism as a politico-social theory is funny because it has some of the msot eloquent proponents out there: Lao-Tsu, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, hell, Tolstoy. At the same time it has some of the worst press (from non-anarchists) of any serious ideology. Most people hear the latter (eg Joseph Conrad) and not the former (eg Tolstoy). So there's this general sense of anarchy as a sort of worldwide free-for-all with cherrybombs: the Hobbesian holocaust. This is obviously not what anyone is suggesting. Most anarchists have been pacifists or near-pacifists. The bomb-throwers, very clearly, are statists of various persuasions...it will take many, many bomb-throwing anarchists to equal Hiroshima. So the question is not 'What happens when one a system whose moral code tolerates homicide is located adjacent to one who does not?' That is already the case...the government tolerates homicide (for their own purposes), most individuals do not. The question is, what do we do about it? The traditional anarchist response to 'What do replace government with?' is 'What do you replace cancer with?'........OK, I'll shut up. Point is, it's easy to set up a straw-man of anarchist theory and then tear it down. I'm unclear if this thread is the place for in-depth political theory...I'm at tr11@sover.net, I'm an anarchist, I have a decent grasp of the literature, and I'm happy to answer questions although my aren't (and can't be) authoritative.