Are you an anarchist? The answer may surprise you (2000)

The problem is if someone amasses enough capital to pay a gang of thugs to do his bidding. Then you can just take over properties, which earn you more money to pay more thugs. You can easily scale that to a global organisation. That's basically what drug cartels are. They run just fine, trade with other illegal organisations etc. It's just that the overhead of building infrastructure and providing security is enormous, so it only really works in extemely high margin industries like illegal drugs.

Imagine the American government disbanding. The kingpins would be Silicon Valley and other West Coast Tech executives because of the sheer convenience afforded by us depending on their hardware (their ideas too) for most communication. People would adapt over time, but that's the issue: over time, people would adapt, not imminently. And the Tech executives would have far fewer barriers to implementing controls than the people would have the means to obstruct them.

I don't doubt for a second that Jeff Bezos would announce Amazon as a leader in "keeping us united as a society," while implementing a new policy in their warehouses that requires Safety teams to lash employees with a bamboo reed each hour if they have not met their rate.

The problem with anarchy, Libertarianism, socialism, communism, and so many similar-veined structures argued for is that these arguments so deeply idealize the end goal that they almost entirely are void of planned action during the transition.

We are physiologically engineered to take the path of least effort. Whatever minimal effort ensures the most survival. The downside to technology is an exponential drop in effort necessary for survival. We need look no further than how far off Reagan was about giving rich people more money in American capitalism (it worked until it snagged on steadily increased market instability, which has since caused massive crashes in 1987, 1996, 2001, and 2008, each time in different sectors and each time due to extremely risky and obviously absurd liability risks taken by the highest brackets of networth wherein any net loss on those decisions was guaranteed to be distributed, whereas any net benefit was guaranteed to be isolated in impact.) We can see this in social justice as well: Feminist organizers are struggling a lot right now after having envisioned a world where "misogyny" was eradicated, yet numbers across the board are going up... more sexual violence, more abuse, more online bullying, more conflicts with other civil rights' movements. The emphasis on a perfect vision has led some amazing women leading the movement to be targeted with abuse from other intersectional groups.

This is just a cursory perspective, and so much more nuance and detail is necessary to get a clear picture, but it is absolutely not as simple as saying, "Anarchy wants/doesn't want to abolish ___." Anarchy is one of a number of social philosophies that by nature are self-cannibalizing, and thereby illogical.

> If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist!

No, if you answered "yes", then that means you live in a society that maintains bus stops, and buses, and these buses are expected to come at regular intervals and stop right in front of the first person waiting in the line, and (for example) not stop fifty meters from the stop sign (and in the middle of the road), forcing everybody to run toward the bus before it takes off again, because there are five other buses and eight illegally parked cars between the bus and the stop sign.

In other words, being able to wait in line in an orderly fashion is not (only) the result of human decency. It's a result of decades of social trial-and-error, forcing people to (for example) not park at bus stops, and eventually convincing enough people that there is a working social system.

I guess one can build a convincing case for anarchism (I particularly liked Le Guin's take in The Dispossessed) but this example is a straight-up first world problem.