True anarchy does imply a lack of goverment, ergo, a lack of laws; however, there are always consequences for one’s actions, negative or otherwise. Said ramifications may not result from a centralized power, but they will occur.
Strength is irrelevent. Dispostion is relevent. You are correct in believing that anarchy is a utopian concept, but you are neglecting to consider the possibilty of enlightened people making the decision to live in such a fashion.
The anti-theft devices would make it extremely difficult. By the way, it’s “Porsche.”
Why not? That idea is preposterous.
And if they agree not to impose their will on one another, you don’t have government.
Lions, dolphins, wolves, chimpanzees and bonobos are a few examples of social animals. Do they follow an alpha male or leader of some form? Yes, some do. Do they have interpersonal relations which can be confrontational? Yes, some do. Do they require the implementation of a system to govern themselves? No, they do not. You may liken the hierarchy of such social animals to that of certain tribes. Members of the tribe may look to a particular member because he or she is particularly wise or strong, but that does not a necessary condition for government. Are you going to argue that egalitarian, tribal systems can’t work?
No, we must do nothing. Some choose to live in such a fashion. Some begrudgingly live in such a fashion. Some follow without question. Some hope for the opportunity to change.