An-archy means no rule at all, so as soon as you have a power structure of any kind (including warlords or thugs or whatever) that is no longer anarchy. True anarchy is not chaotic--it is the absence of authority, the absence of the state. Real anarchy is unlikely to ever exist, because it would require that nobody tries to dominate others. True anarchy requires the individuals to cease calling themselves individuals. As in, quit having an ego. Sounds good and impossible to me.

Would you predict chaos or prosperity under a state of anarchy?

Depends on the number of things involved. If too many, then chaos. If little, might manageable. Anyway, both situation will happen for a certain period of time, then the other ideology option will occur. The thing is, to get used to the idea that things change.

Perhaps it represents what the majority of a population wants, but not what everyone wants. There's no such thing. People may have different interests within a population. Anyways, if the majority of a population wants to promote equal distribution of goods with healthcare for everyone, then you are literally living under a Socialist system.

Anarchy may be way more symbolic than representational. I cannot see true anarchy existing, because there are always those who would fall to greed and power and try to take over. Humans can't handle anarchy.

The whole idea of anarchy is no one answers to anyone, and everyone just performs their duties without being dictated, monitored, or coerced by anyone else. It is also assumed that all members will not simply destroy the system in place. It's an honor system that is only as good as its member's dedication to it. In some small communities where everyone is on the same page and cultural conventions can keep the system working, anarchy is a viable idea. But once you introduce a competitive idea from a neighboring community that doesn't share the same culture and moral identity, your anarchy becomes the breeding ground for tribal war.

It's hilarious. People who seriously go for anarchism make me think they can't be psychologically older than nine. Because it's rooted in idealism and is otherwise pants-on-head retarded because it ignores reality and human nature—power vacuum is impossible.

Anarchists are selfish idealists who cannot think in the long term. They lack an understanding of cause and effect or how anarchism is a form of totalitarian social control through peer pressure by lacking a protection for minority voices besides 'Well if you don't like it go somewhere else because you're free."

It depends which anarchism. If you mean opposition to the state itself, then certainly I am an anarchist and in favour of anarchy. If you mean an opposition to the market economy or hierarchy in general then I am not an anarchist and greatly opposed to anarchy. The state is the anti-thesis of peaceful social cooperation. Anything the state does, the market can do better.

The best argument for anarchism is the state. The state uses violence and coercion as a means of obtaining revenue. That's wrong. If I were to point a gun at you and threaten you with death if you don't hand over your wallet, then everyone would condemn me as an armed robber, yet when the state threatens me with violence in order to take my money, few people give this action a second thought.

Anarchy is no solution to a stable and large living society. It may be a stage, but it would never be a long lasting and stable form. Anarchism sounds good in theory until you actually examine what it would entail and result in. So you dismantle the state entirely and we're suddenly going to be a completely de-centralized yet cooperative collective working toward the common good of all? When in human history has such a system actually succeeded?

The first thing that will actually happen is the power vacuum will be filled by private entities or other nation-states. Do you trust these entities which you have zero say in how they operate to treat you better than the existing states and government?

The reason we have nation-states at all is because from the dawn of human history we have competed with others for resources. It started as little tribes of warring primates and we discovered that centralized cooperation on larger scales was beneficial because we could appropriate even more resources.

So the philosophy works if everyone agrees to it, but as soon as one entity decides that they want to take more than what they're entitled to then what are you going to do about it if they're just more powerful than you?

By the way how do you vindicate the rights and liberties of individuals in an anarchist system?

If someone rapes or assaults another person how is the appropriate response determined? Do we just see how it plays out? Perhaps a lynching? Or will there be specific punitive sanctions mandated by a central authority? Ooh sounds suspiciously like a government. I have heard from voluntary society advocates that they'll just ruin their credit ratings if they refuse to compensate the victim or comply with any mandated sanction of society. LOL.

Seriously, though our liberties and rights are protected and vindicated by coercive systems, so what is the anarchist alternative?

The ability of private individuals to indefinitely appropriate resources and control the means of production does not necessarily explain how this benefits society more so than communal ownership or nationalization of certain resources. For example the reason countries like the Indonesia are economically crippled is because free enterprise can buy up all their mineral resources and control their means of production. Nationalization would actually promote the common good in this instance.

What you're presuming is that we live in a world where markets cannot be manipulated or exploited. They can and are. Human is evil.