Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

Not just to clarify but to refute arguments that I found in The Chaos Heart's which seems to me illogical. Also included in this rebuttal, I will also bring justification for why these questions that I have are reasonable and must be answered. My opponent has started off talking about the confusion about what is considered a "Good Political Philosophy" and what do I mean about that. I will admit that I maybe haven't made the argument clear for my audience in regards to what type of good. From the definitions that the Chaos heart as left, let us use the second definition. In which case, it seems to me that Anarchism is not sound for the most part. Keep in mind though that even though I am taking a position against anarchism as a governing body, I'm still open to idea that maybe it's possible so if my opponent can open my mind to the idea that it's possible then maybe but moving on to more arguments. I really do want to thank my opponent for clarifying about the definition of good but I also find that my opponent has misinterpreted what anarchism really is. Let's go through the definition of Anarchism. Anarchism according to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition says the followingAnarchism: A political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. (1)Let's use another definition that might tell us what anarchism really is. On Free Dictionary. com, it says 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority:(2) With the first two definitions, there is a correlation between them. We are beginning to notice that the main message of Anarchism is that it's a political theory in which it believes that ALL governmental authority is unnecessary. What does this mean according to the language. If ALL governmental authority means that individual you were talking about in the island than yes, anarchism considers all authority wrong. At this point, I feel that my opponent has contradicted himself and made anarchism into how he makes it. While the two other definitions suggest that anarchism is a political theory that is against only illegitimate forms of anarchism. If the first two definitions mean that all forms of government are illegitimate then that includes all governments. Whether they are illegitimate or not. If it goes by the 3rd and 4th definition, then I can understand why you would be in favor of it however, I fail to see how this is relevant to what were talking about. My thoughts on the first two definitions is that I argue that not all forms of government are illegitimate. For example, the U. S. A. allowed the banks to mess with their money and look where it got them. Does that mean all that governments are bad because of this one particular government. No. Now Chaos Heart, I'm not saying that you think this exactly but according to the definition of anarchism and if that definition is head on, then the argument that I provided in this paragraph should be taken into consideration. When looking at his argument saying that which idea of anarchism is not important, my opponent has failed to recognize the importance of what anarchist society the people should live by. The reason why it's important is because as we look at history, we will notice that there are certain characteristics from these different forms of anarchism that ether make or break a society. For example, Anarcho-Capitalism is completely different compared to Anarcho-Communism. Talking about a form of study in Science is not the same as a political and/or economic plan unless you experimented with different ideas. Certain communities tend to be more stronger if they are in agreement with one another but when closed off when having boarders and armies trying to go after you, you have to come to a certain conclusion. What I'm trying to say is in desparate times like the Paris Commune, it is required to make decisive decisions. With response to your counter argument by saying that my argument about corrupt banks and corporations is not relevant. Why not? This has everything to do with anarchism because if it's true that all governments are illegitimate and the anarchists seek to control, how can they take control when they are dealing with extremely powerful groups such as corporations and the banks which then become the next power and already are. This to me is a part of what makes a good political philosophy. You also suggested that there are ways in which anarchists would deal with this situation. May I ask what those measures may be?