Anarchism is not as flawed as people claim it is.

I will assume you wish to apply this to large populations as you implied you wanted the US government to be anarchist From what you have argued, you portray anarchism mainly based on a society where there are no individual leaders or even specialized leaders; every member of the community convene and make the decisions together. . That by itself is problematic as society would have to effectively stop functioning to discuss, create, debate, and vote on laws that would most likely take months to complete the full process due to almost everyone weighing in their interests. That will bring me to my first point 1. The system is unable to function and at best will be painstakingly inefficient. As I mentioned earlier, all of society would halt just to deliberate. Even if this applies to small scale communities, the lack of access to some services can be life-threatening (let's say emergency services like healthcare, law enforcement, and the fire department). Any major issues that occurs in any sphere of society like a power outage will be extremely difficult to deal with if everyone are busy deciding laws. There must be a specialized body of legislature in order to ensure that everyone else can function in society. It's like a division of tasks. You may argue that these meetings won't take too much time; however, voting on legislation takes an extraordinary amount of time. There are too many details that the entire group has to agree on. Take politics in America's two party political system. With just two parties, they delay the legislative process because of conflicting ideologies for weeks if not months. Now take this into the community perspective and imagine there are thousands of dissenting interests. Decisions on even the most minor changes to laws will be protracted because of each individual having their own ideologies, making compromise near-impossible. And that brings me to my second point 2. The people will not be able to agree on issues; thus, no laws can be created or the laws will bring no significant change to the status quo. I am going to once again state that dissenting opinions among each individual will cause multiple conflicts in the community, which might obstruct the process of debating on policy. All of the issues we have with just two parties will simply be amplified hundred-fold in anarchism. There will never be a compromise for all the standpoints of each individual citizen, and it would be difficult to even find a compromise for half of the citizens. Thus, the community will never be able to decide on a motion. Even if they do find a way to compromise for the majority of the citizens, any legislation that satisfies so many viewpoints cannot change the status quo too much. Most likely the laws will change some small details of the current system, but the big, significant changes will be too controversial and will perpetually be debated by the community. 3. There are structural flaws in anarchism whose exploitation will undermine its very principles. First of all, we still have not defined whether it has to be a consensus or not. If it is a consensus, then the government will be incapable of accomplishing anything if it has to accommodate for the interests of every single citizen. However if it's a simple majority vote, then the majority can pass legislation that will abuse the minority. They have no oversight, and the majority will not feel as much sympathy for the minority because they are voting by themselves. The masses cannot be relied upon to consider the overall picture of the community; in fact, it would be unfair for society to place upon them the burden that they have to consider all aspects of the laws they are voting on despite still needing to go to work, care for their families, and the rest of the tasks in daily life that occupy the lives of the working person. On the other hand, a leader or a group of leaders can devote all of their time to considering all the finer details of the policy and its impacts since their job and purpose in society is to solely govern. Another flaw is that people will choose unqualified people for important positions. In anarchism, the masses will vote for the best orator, so anyone with no experience but is good with words can be chosen to fill leadership positions like head of the military or research and development. This was a problem that plagued Athens in the past, and in times of need they allocated their power to an individual, e.g. Pericles. A leader, although he can also be elected because of his self-presentation, will be more suited to appointing leadership positions because the leader will choose professionals for the Cabinet. The leader will gain more access to expert advice, but it is unlikely the all or even half of the people voting will be able to receive advice from experts. Lastly, there is no oversight to this system. How do we ensure that the system will run smoothly and that everyone will either join in on the debate or that everyone will resolve their conflicts peacefully? How do we get everyone agree to joining and abiding by something like this, especially seeing that anarchism will require more work out of the people. And how will we oversee the system? Will there be enforcement? If there is, then whoever is in charge of the enforcement will gain too much power and possibly overthrow the system (noting how the Roman Republic was undid by the popularity of its generals). If there is no oversight, then anarchism cannot be carried out. One cannot expect every single person to follow the rules if there is no incentive or punishment. People won't cooperate. To conclude, anarchism is too easy to exploit and too inefficient. People who are preoccupied by everyday life will not invest their full effort in making effective legislation, and a multitude of interests will also decrease the legislation's impact and delay it from ever being passed. The system will be easy to exploit, people will be hard-pressed to even accept so much responsibility, and it is all too easy for someone to destroy the system. A specialized leader(s) can have checks but can still act decisively. I've given the argument that the current government is superior. However just from how impractical and flawed it would be to implement this system in real life, I urge for a CON vote.