We are arguing the value of anarchy, a conceptual idea. All ideas have some value. That is the premise. We are jumping to conclusions before we are actually talking about the purpose. Anarchy is the rejection of authority. While we could talk about the authority of the self makes this claim to counter an outside authority, the point should be made that it is valuable in making changes. Some are good, some are bad, Gandhi vs Fidel, and the point is that people will do anything to maintain power. So, if anarchy is immoral for challenging the government and disrupting society, than I dare say it is important to understand why people rebel in the first place. Civilization changes on the people, perspective, etc. Compare developed nations to undeveloped nations, they both have social order and rules, therefore a functioning society. You really have to remove your self-important bias by understanding amenities do not correlate to concepts of society. Society is simply social order wherever you find groups of organized people and rule. Yes, its nice to have nice things, but anarchism is a check on power.
I believe this because humans by nature are cautious and careful people. We do NOT need others telling us how to live. I've enlisted into the United States Navy and i agree with national defense on all fronts, but I am 100% with the anarchist ideal. Authorities are not necessary unless it involves the country's safety.
If you read some history you would know what anarchism have contributed to this world (the 8 hour day for example). There are many examples that show it could work, like the anarchists of the spanish revolution, Free territory in Ukraine and so on. "Anarchy is mother of order" -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
The problem with the idea of the state being an agent of order for the welfare of the populace, is that government itself is a catalyst for chaos.
Think of it this way:
If there is a government, there is hierarchy.
If there is hierarchy, there is a class system.
If there is a class system, then there is a class on the bottom of society. If this class exists, then there is a class struggle.
If there is a class struggle, there is instability.
If there is instability, then it will ultimately lead to civil war.
Whereas with Anarchism:
If there is anarchy, there is no hierarchy.
If there is no hierarchy, there is no class system.
If there is no class system, there is no class struggle.
If there is no class struggle, there is stability.
If there is stability, then order reigns.
In general most people don't have a good idea about what anarchism is. For obvious reasons, like this is not a functioning democracy. I f it was we would have abetter understanding of all systems proposed from the far left to the far right. Good luck finding that out on the mainstream level
Anarchy represents no ideology. People only support anarchy as a form of resistance to whatever government is in power. Obviously, people always need some form of government. If there really were anarchy, society would quickly fall apart. People need basic government services like utilities and police protection to have normal lives.
Anarchism, which is the abolition of almost all forms of government would cause the colaps of civilization. Without some form of rule or authority we would be reduced to a loose tribal order. The authority would come from grass roots in a bullying fashion. The largest, meanest, curliest person would become the authority. This would be 1500 year setback for modern man. No government services or public utilities would exist. It would be like going camping, except it would be forever. No thanks!