Anarchism is a broad concept, which can incorporate collective cooperation. It's attractive in theory, but in reality, if modern society was to be plunged into this sort of existence, disorder and chaos (i.e. the popular definition of "anarchy") would probably prevail. If Cameron can't get "Big Society" to work, I'm not sure what chance we'd have of implementing the sort of extreme micro-devolution LD describes. Unless we're put in the position where we have no choice but to manage ourselves. I personally think that today's biggest problems - including the financial crisis, global warming, declining fossil fuels, natural/humanitarian disasters - would be best solved with global cooperation (although it ain't happening at the moment...)