Every form of rule has it's flaws, but in a perfect society anarchism would be on top, what gives the government the right to make us behave and think a certain way while prohibiting us from using certain drugs or committing certain actions, the only rule that should apply is to not hurt a fellow human being, there is just no way around it,
Any political ideology can be the best form of society if we don't hurt each other, realistically however anarchism poses many problem stopping it from being implemented. Such as how it is human nature to group into societies electing leaders, anarchism only works if you remove all the negative parts from human nature.
I see many people here arguing that the problem with anarchism is that without punishment for us hurting one another then people would start hurting each other. They forget the fact that in an anarcho-capitalist society there can be PRIVATE police forces. These private police forces can be hired by individuals in the case of the middle class and the rich through subscriptions and by apartment owners for the poor (since most poor people live in apartments). By having competing police forces for every area, not only will their costs be very low, but also the police would no longer engage in violence against the public like they do today. There are many economists in high academia that argue that we already don't need a government at all and that government, in fact, is actually slowing down progress for mankind. You can look up private police forces on google and you'll find a few essays on it. One day people will wake up and realize that we don't really need Uncle Sam or any government at all. And no, Somalia isn't a good example because that place was in chaos even when they had a government, it has more to do with their own culture and also because their regime was also being screwed by foreign GOVERNMENTS. No one can touch this argument.
Private property without government mandating is a right of ours stated in the fifth amendment, and I believe reinstating these original, traditional beliefs would alleviate a lot of the tension between the government and the people. The U.S. being a democratic republic allows much of the power to be held by the government and less to the people, and we have realized that, so I believe that self governed "city-states," (with governmental order) would benefit us greatly and turn us more into the democracy we claim to be.
"If we don't hurt each other". This places a great deal of trust in human nature, which is the behavior of the naive. History teaches us that people are inherently wicked. There needs to be a distinct system of punishments and rewards to guarantee that people do not harm one another.
The rules of society are there to prevent you from harming others or others from harming you. You may think that doing drugs is only harming yourself but the person giving you those drugs would be the cause of that harm therefore against the rules of society.
I have no idea why you connect doing drugs to anarchy. It doesn't make you an anarchist, it just makes you a druggy.
You must be smoking some hardcore drugs if you think that a society where there's no sort of authority to maintain a free and stable society in which peace will still be maintained is absolutely fascinating, but nonetheless ridiculous. Because there's a missing presence of an authority to enforce rules and punish those who break it, gives power to thieves and murderers as they fail to see any consequences for their actions and a lack of any sort of deterrence to deter criminals from committing immoral acts of violence and thievery.
The entire idea of anarchy is insane. Without law there will be murder, theft and rape on the regular. There will be nothing stopping anyone aside from there own sense of morality. The reason that humans created government systems throughout the years was because we needed it for order and to prevent the dark side of human nature from fully taking over.
In the strictest sense, the sense most everyday people mean when they use the word "anarchism" no. Even if all self-proclaimed anarchists are peaceful and nonviolent there would be some people who would not respect this. The only way to stop them would be to organize and enforce against them somehow and then you have a government again.
However, if you actually look at the writings of self-proclaimed anarchists you'll find they are using "government" in a narrower sense. In the Spanish Civil War the anarchists still had worker's councils and community councils and then they were federated into larger in-theory voluntary organizations made of elected and recallable delegates. Even though these were voluntary organizations it's likely that if an individual community or worker's council voted for racism, sexism, or exploitation of workers other groups in the organizations would've went to stop them and the organization as a whole would've approved or even voted on the measure to stop them.
This is "anarchism" used as a relative term instead of an absolute term, it's having rules made in a more decentralized fashion, being made primarily at the level in which people live their everyday lives rather than by distant bureaucrats. In the anarchosyndicalists of Spain's case it was a very decentralized socialist government, something akin to what many in today's Green Party would see as an ideal form of government.
I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand local decision-making has the advantage of taking into account the interests of those most directly effected. On the other hand some political scientists have cited issues with devolving power to local authorities, such as inefficiency and conflicting interests that arise when nearby localities have vastly different rules and regulations.
Either way using "anarchism" as a relative term is not a good political strategy and nobody will understand you aren't talking about abolishing all laws and rules.
That's a pretty big 'if'.
Since we're talking about ridiculous things, we might as well give everyone mansions and unicorns too.
Human beings can be fucking awful to each other if they know that there won't be consequences. This is why every society - from tribal to civilisations - has relied on a legitimised use of force to make troublemakers fear the consequences of their actions.
The jews set up camps in various places across Europe and the Reich thought nothing of it. They then secretly went on mass hunger strikes. They all started working themselves to death, so Hitler sent in troops to try and get them to eat, but they wouldn't listen. Their bodies started to pile up, so he had to get rid of them somehow because it was unsanitary. This explains the ovens. It was the Jews' fault.
For starters, people will always hurt each other; there is no end to human ambition and desire for conquest. History has shown that. However, even if we suddenly became a bunch of pacifists, we'd still need a central government in order to provide basic needs and services. Even without a central government, corporations would still fill in the gaps and create a government-like structure, creating a government not in name, but still in essence. Without any sort of official structure basic needs of certain groups could not be met, even if security was no longer an issue. Point is, anarchy doesn't work, period.