"Anarchy must be earned."
It seems so damn obvious, it surprises me nobody else has bothered mentioning it before.
(Yes, it's perhaps a natural offshoot of "With freedom comes responsibility", but there's more to it than that...)
So, what do I mean?! I mean that anarchy is like a blank canvas, offering up unlimited creative potential and great potential for unfettered happiness. It also creates a lawless environment with the potential for great injustice... and it doesn't take too many highly destructive individuals to turn a heaven into a hell.
But what if a society *did* allow for anarchy, but only for those who proved themselves worthy of it first? Admittedly, there would still probably be an occasional need to remove people from such a society, but the experience would probably be as close to complete anarchy as anyone is likely to achieve.
The real trick is how you design a community or system of government to best achieve the objective - that of personal responsibility - while not degenerating into group of people who adhere to a stale doctrine of political correctness, where the limitless potential for absolute freedom is not overly restricted in the first place.
I'll leave that one for you to figure out for yourselves...
"And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, a terribly stupid catastrophe occurred, and the idea was lost forever."