i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.
Well, I suppose it depends on the situation. Sorry in advance for the following scenario, I know it will be offensive, but sadly it seems to me to be how things work:
If we're talking about a third world country most people never heard about and have nearly no contact with, that were to try this, I suppose external forces would have an easy time directing the propaganda to paint them as a target, for whatever reason. And unfortunately, some people would probably protest against it, but to no avail.
Now imagine a relatively rich country were to try this, say Iceland. I have a hard time imagining propaganda would work so well in this case, particularly if the transition to anarchy was a relatively peaceful one to begin with. Then again, this may be a little overly optimistic.
that's a valid point. but if your end goal is to have all nations (especially the western/developed ones), then that really shuffles the cards. i really do think that smaller groups vying for power would form, and the rules we know today (whether they are good or bad) probably won't exist... even if you are a well developed country. if iceland were the only ones to turn to anarchy, i think they would be fine. i think it would actually be a pretty cool idea.. an experiment, if you will. a lot of libertarians, i'd assume, would move there to live.