"Straightforward etymology should convince most people of the true definition of anarchy. A straightforward definition of anarchy means “without rulers.” For example, monarchy is the “archy” or rule of one, oligarchy is the rule of a few, hierarchy is a layered rule; thus anarchy is the rule of none."
Unfortunately, politicians, the media people, and other interested parties have distorted the meaning of the word. The philosophy of anarchy is one of the more maligned and misunderstood philosophies. The definition of anarchy has been highly politicized.
Most people today carelessly use the word to mean bomb-throwing, unlimited boundaries, chaos, and disorder.
Anarchy merely means no rulers — nothing more and nothing less.
William Godwin often is credited as the founder of philosophical anarchism, with his book An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793). He lived during the 18th and 19th centuries. He married Mary Wollstonecraft who wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” (1792). They were the parents of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the author of “Frankenstein.”
...
Much confusion arises because many people incorrectly believe that “rule by none” is synonymous with bomb-throwing, unlimited boundaries, chaos, and disorder. Yet, such a connection is incorrect. Anarchy does not mean “without rules.” Anarchists strongly support and embrace social order and justice. They merely reject the concept that any specific group of people can be appointed, elected, or trusted to provide social order and justice. Anarchists reject centralized political processes. All anarchists reject processes of political privilege and political systems are nothing but processes of such privilege. Anarchists reject any process whereby property titles are created through political privilege instead of true free association and voluntary exchange."
http://www.simpleliberty.org/tootoa/anarchy_abused.htm
____________________________
You can disagree that anarchy is desirable. But the definitions you are trying to use are flawed plain and simple.
this argument crushes the one you presented earlier. you should apologize for it like you apologized for your first argument in the thread. same basic situation.