On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

Anarchism is by far the most idealistic of political ideologies. Pro's Round One argument essentially posits that individuals will simply live with no government (laws), and trade to survive. He says there is no incentive to cheat the system because it will disrupt peaceful trade. Of course this rationalization rejects the logic that human beings are greedy and selfish by nature [1]. Keeping that in mind, it is unreasonable to assume that trading disputes can simply "work themselves out." For instance, suppose I agreed to trade Pro one chicken for one lamb. After giving me the lamb, I walk away without giving Pro the chicken. What happens? Well Pro can presumably shout from the roof tops that I am a no good cheat, but can he prove it? If so, will that guarantee that nobody else will trade with me based on my act? Or is it reasonable to assume that someone else (most likely in a more desperate position) will trade with me regardless? In other words, how am I punished for this act? If not, is that moral, and/or a productive way to run society? With privatized police, judges and/or jails there is no responsibility for law enforcement of any kind to remain consistent in their values or punishment, and more importantly there is no system of checks and balances to ensure equality or fairness in every or even most cases. Additionally there would be chaos. Who would police or judge a specific dispute? Suppose Pro steals from me and I want him punished. What do? Any answer Pro gives, I'm sure, can be easily dismantled. Another thing - What about currency? Pro says that society may employ a monetary pricing system, and yet I fail to see how everyone in "society" will agree to one system. If everyone does not agree to said system, then democracy or tyranny of the majority ensues eliminating Pro's idea of lawlessness. I say lawlessness because again we reach the same problem: If laws are to be created, it would mean that EVERYONE must agree to those laws, or else it enacts another situation of democracy or tyranny of the majority - which act specifically against Pro's presented ideals. Most rational people accept that currency is a preferable and convenient way to place value on things and trade. Without government or a central currency-maker there is no guarantee that this favorable system of trade would be possible. What if I use one form of currency and Pro uses another? What if they are valued differently? This does not make much sense. Additionally, how would our currency variables make it possible for us to trade efficiently with other nations? Most importantly, in an anarchist utopia, how would two people who have different conceptions of property rights - or a dispute involving property rights - justly, reasonably and logically settle their dispute? Here's another issue: Many anarchists see the destruction of property as an acceptable form of violence, or argue that it is not violence at all. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre drew on American historical events, including the destroying of revenue stamps and the Boston Tea Party, as a defense of such violent activities [2]. If one acts violently, who will determine if it is coercive vs. aggressive, and regardless of the answer, how would the offender be punished? Who would punish them? There are other concerns [3]. A government is an aggregation of individuals. Why assume that every government actor is a rotten power monger, but then assume that every free trader holds values similar to your own and will act rationally and with a cool head in a crisis situation? Moreover, what sort of freedom do you have if there is no justice? What sort of freedom do you have if it cannot be protected based upon objective principles, regardless of whether you are wealthy or poor, strong or weak, well known or a newcomer? Is freedom, then, only for the strong or wealthy? We have proof of what happens in places where there is no law or authority figure(s) even if just for a short amount of time. For instance: Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia... the list goes on. The result is violence, blood shed and overall chaos. If anarchy worked, why has no civilization successfully employed this? Even the peaceful Native Americans had tribal chiefs responsible for doling out punishments and regarded as centralized rulers. One also wonders why the problems associated with government - including greed, exploitation, etc. - are possible via government but are not possible WITHOUT government. Especially since the "government" is nothing more than a bunch of people to begin with. What evidence can be given to ensure that the same result (or worse) would not ensue? I eagerly await Pro's response. [1] http://www.helium.com... [2] http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu... [3] http://www.solopassion.com...