I assume you mean that the entire concept of "government" is, based on your words, the problem. Now this statement is false and simply a result of silly hubris.
A governing body is essential to regulate the rights of the citizens of the country, state or geographical boundary it is governing. And it should rightly do so. Leaving it in the hands of the public only creates more chaos.
Case in point; Debate.Org. Nobody can unanimously agree on many of the essential big issues. We have two sides of an issue and both sides argue, rebut and, in many scenarios, throw insults at the opposing party. Because this forum allows people to remain unanimous (at least I do hope so), we don't personally take the fight to someone's house. This is true in the real world. People will always stay divided on issues because no one follows a hive mind behavior. We are all a sum of our individual thoughts, responses and feelings. If you leave it to the public, they will resort to violence even to prove their point. Without a governing body, organizations like the KKK would have committed far more atrocious acts.
Anarchy is never a solution and if it comes down to it, people will always be conflicted about opinions. Eventually, in order to keep the peace among themselves, the people will elect a "leader" or a "leading group of people" to oversee conflicts on everyone's behalf. This eventually becomes a very rudimentary form of government.
I understand if you are trying to prove that a particular government is inept, but you cannot blame the entire idea of it.
Correction: The statement should read "Because this forum allows people to remain anonymous..." and should not include "unanimous". I hope now it is more clear. I was typing too fast and failed to proofread later.
@Akhaniel (2016-07-12 14:26): "Now this statement is false": I will try to convince you that, on the contrary, this statement is indeed true. Unfortunately, you provide few arguments, and only some assertions.
"If you leave it to the public, they will resort to violence even to prove their point.": The problem with this statement is that the government is a body that can only resort to violence. So your argument is, reformulated (I hope I reformulated it correctly): "In order to prevent violence, we have to use violence". This statement is self-contradictory, since the use of violence is violence itself - even if executed by the government.
"[...] if it comes down to it, people will always be conflicted about opinions. Eventually, in order to keep the peace among themselves, the people will elect a 'leader' or a 'leading group of people' to oversee conflicts on everyone's behalf": Now, using the government violently forces some opinion (or some resulting actions) on individuals, e.g. which drugs may be consumed and which have to be punished. This can be the majority (in a perfect democracy) or a group (in an oligarchy) or individuals (in a dictatorship or monarchy). Your argument is, reformulated (I hope I reformulated it correctly): "People have conflicting opinions, therefore we have to violently force them to resolve conflicts according to the rules defined by the government". This is a non-sequitur. We have plenty of evidence that conflicts can be resolved without violence, for example international arbitration, or Islands ancient conflict resolution, where two conflicting parties would choose a third party that would make a decision on the punishment, and if one of the parties didn't comply, he could be ostracised by the public - non-violently. It suffices to supply one counter example; therefore we don't necessarily need a violent government to resolve conflicts.
@eyeofpython. Thank you for the article. It was very interesting and well researched. Thank you also for putting a proper counter-argument. It was much more refreshing to read than many I have come across. Allow me to counter that.
This statement, "Because of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion...", proves that Iceland was devoid of many external influence. We are talking about a community that was completely filled with Icelandic settlers. In today's world, we are greatly aware of each other. I can step outside my house and notice a plethora of races, nationalities, religions, belief systems and other distinctions. Each group of people have their own moral code, opinions, practices and beliefs. If we leave the entirety of the responsibilities of the country in the hands of the people, we are going to have clashes of opinions. A simple example would be pro-life versus pro-choice. Who will decide who is right and who is wrong each classification of people have their own reasons for wanting one side or the other?
In a politically anarchist community, everyone has to come to an agreement on their own terms (since no one can coerce them to) that they will adhere to a set collection of rules. This may work when it comes to small and isolated communities. In an era of globalization, one cannot hope for a small community exclusive of the influences of other sects or groups of people.
Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism often leads to coercive authorities, whether the crowd likes it or not. This was proven to be the downfall of Iceland as well as mentioned in the article - "When one truly looks at Iceland's history objectively, one can see what the real causes of Iceland's collapse was. The lack of competition and the monopolistic qualities that eventually came about when five families cornered the chieftaincy market was one reason."
Moreover, if we assume setting up a body of laws by the government for people to follow is coercive, then in any anarchist community, Crowd Psychology takes over. People have to be part of a group to survive and for that to happen, they will have to sacrifice their beliefs so that they are part of the beliefs of the entire group or crowd. That is another way of submitting to the rules of a group.
Without government there would be anarchy, and with that we must also realize that there is no true form of anarchy. In a place with no government the strongest of whats left of that civilization will be the government for the weak. A goverment to make it simple is a needed part of any civilization and to claim it is not neccecary is lunacy
Reagan sure brainwashed a lot of you to be anti government, yet funny how you don't REFUSE your Social Security REFUSE your Medicare, REFUSE your Unemployment Pay REFUSE your Disability Pay REFUSE your Food Stamps REFUSE your college grants and scholarships...
The term government is silly. But to label an organizational body, one whose intention is explicitly to steady the balance of mankind on the rough footing that is evolution, is equally silly. The continued existence of governments is due to their ability to keep vast amounts of people alive far better than the alternative, and although governments may corrupt, or fail, or stagnate, or suffer disaster, or abuse, or other calamity, no logic has yet provided a more effective means of keeping such vast quantities of humanity alive. The alternative to government, one which naturally presents itself, anarchy, was the status quo for unnamed millions, who died depraved, often alone, cold, and without comfort in the dark eons which preceded civilization. But to refuse the billions who yet live, the advantages an organized society for that grim fate, is such an ill-logic that one must be truly confused or otherwise hampered to believe some greater good can come from the absence of organization.
@BirdieMachine: How do you define good and bad? Do you have a predetermined set of criteria that you use as a checklist to label someone good or bad? Because that is exactly what anarchism does. It presents people with the opportunity to define their own moral code. Will a billion combination of moral codes, whose is right?
Republicans have tricked people to think government is bad, never mind they ALL receive Social Security or Medicare or Food Stamps or Unemploment Pay or Disability Pay or Vacation Pay or Sick pay or College Grants/Scholarships or....