“Anarchy means without government, but it does not necessarily mean chaos or total disorder.”

Source: A Scanner Darkly (1977), Chapter 14 (p. 244)

"Of Their Choosing" http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/of-their-choosi.html, The Daily Dish (20 September 2007)

Source: The Man Who Never Missed (1985), Chapter 11 (p. 95; ellipses in the original)

Augustus (1937)
Context: There is no merit in an empire as such. Extension in space does not necessarily mean spiritual advancement. The small community is easier to govern, and, it may well be, more pleasant to live in. If its opportunities are limited its perils are also circumscribed. But the alternatives which confronted him were empire or anarchy.

Anarchy and Christianity [Anarchie et Christianisme] (1988) as translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1991), p. 11
Context: There are different forms of anarchy and different currents in it. I must, first say very simply what anarchy I have in view. By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence. Hence I cannot accept either nihilists or anar­chists who choose violence as a means of action.

Rouhani urges end to meddling in Iranians' private lives http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23161972, BBC News, (3 July, 2013)

#Human Values

In allem Chaos ist Kosmos und in aller Unordnung geheime Ordnung. <br class="br">http://books.google.com/books?id=hOUkAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22in+allem+Chaos+ist+Kosmos+und+in+aller+Unordnung+geheime+Ordnung%22&amp;pg=PA41#v=onepage <br class="br"> p. 32 http://books.google.com/books?id=Yc5PlU9MyDwC&amp;q=%22in+all+chaos+there+is+a+cosmos+in+all+disorder+a+secret+order%22&amp;pg=PA32#v=onepage (1981 edition) <br class="br"> Originally presented http://books.google.com/books?id=-5oJAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22in+allem+Chaos+ist+Kosmos+und+in+aller+Unordnung+geheime+Ordnung%22&amp;pg=PA213#v=onepage at an Eranos conference. (1935) <br class="br">The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1934)

Neither Democrats, Nor Dictators: Anarchists (1926)
Context: The "government of all the people", if we have to have government, can at best be only the government of the majority. And the democrats, whether socialists or not, are willing to agree. They add, it is true, that one must respect minority rights; but since it is the majority that decides what these rights are, as a result minorities only have the right to do what the majority wants and allows. The only limit to the will of the majority would be the resistance which the minorities know and can put up. This means that there would always be a social struggle, in which a part of the members, albeit the majority, has the right to impose its own will on the others, yoking the efforts of all to their own ends.
And here I would make an aside to show how, based on reasoning backed by the evidence of past and present events, it is not even true that where there is government, namely authority, that authority resides in the majority and how in reality every "democracy" has been, is and must be nothing short of an "oligarchy" – a government of the few, a dictatorship. But, for the purposes of this article, I prefer to err on the side of the democrats and assume that there can really be a true and sincere majority government.
Government means the right to make the law and to impose it on everyone by force: without a police force there is no government.