I have not read every post, so I may be repeating somone elses statements, but the Theory of Anarchy as a good possibuilty, requires several assumptions.

One is that people are capable of being better than they are. I do not mean that there are no good people out there but rather that it requires no bad people.

Two it assumes that every one has the same concept of morality and concept of right and wrong, at least in one area, everyone must agree that everyones point of view is valid and or they must be in agreement that it is not acceptable to force their own concept of morality and right and wrong on others.

Three even if the first two points came to pass what about crimes of passion. Acceptable or not? What about crimes of retribution, acceptable or not? Who decides? A judicial body would become the ruling force, apointed, elected, or drawn from a hat, it would no longer be anarchy, it would be organised government.

Four what about the mentally ill do they share the same rights as everyone else, who determines what is mental illness? Maybe they too simply have a different concept of the way things should be. Do they get to exercise those beliefs?

 Five what about the jobs that need to be done that no one wants to do? What if no one in your community wants to pick up garbage and how do you convince someone it is a good idea to wade through human waist to unplug a septic system if  no one is paying them?

There are other reasons anarchy doesn't and won't work these are just the tip of the iceberg. From the original post I actually don't think the writer wants anarchy at all. What he truely wants is a true social democracy, every one shares everything and every votes on everything, majority rules. The problem is that this has similar failings to anarchy, though it can work. This tends to be fairly stable on a small scale, generaly in an agrarian society, and some of them still exist.

-- Moderator