I couldn't agree more. I think that as a philosophy, anarchy is bulletproof. In-practice, I don't think it's possible because people will always subvert other people. I've often said it weren't the government collecting taxes, it would be the mafia, and here in the USA we don't have it too bad. Runaway spending is definitely a problem, and I think moving towards a libertarian society is preferable to a more authoritarian society, so we still have work to do; but our constitution provides us with some great liberties that are seldom seen honored by governments of other nations. To me, if you have something as good as the government we have (but FAR from perfect), we should work on changing it rather than doing away it.

Even more importantly, I think that it is too late in the game for anarchy. Anarchy might have worked several thousand years ago, when societies were localized and didn't have technologies capable of wiping out the entire species at the push of a button, but now that we are where we are technologically, we have to maintain our national defense at the level it is at now. Anarchy would ONLY work if every single person in the world stood up and said "enough." But that's never going to happen, even worse, the only way you could coordinate such an event would be using technology. Well, the only people that would get the message are people living in free enough societies that the government allows freedom of speech. Problem is, then you're only getting rid of the most lenient governments, which doesn't make much sense to me. Here in America, you're free to spout how much you hate the government and unless you're calling for direct threats of violence, you can do it legally. In China, if you try the same thing you will likely be punished and perhaps even executed. Such a message would never make it to citizens of those societies. These are a few reasons why I agree with what you are saying.

Cheers