Have you done much reading of history? It works fine and better than every other system tried to date. It is the only correct answer you ignorant fool.
Begin with such stunning periods as the Enlightenment. Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations" ... frankly I don't know why I bother you are so far off the pace to be something of a lost cause really.
So which countries during the Enlightenment practiced anarchy successfully? I seem to recall most nations were monarchies at the time. You know, kings like Charles II, William and Mary, Louis XIV, Leopold II in Italy (who among other enlightened things abolished the death penalty), etc. Are you honestly citing this period in history as an argument in favor of anarchy?
Because in the nations where Enlightenment thinking actually took root and was enacted, it was generally through the absolute power of monarchs. When the monarchs didn't want to go along, they were sometimes eliminated, like in the French Revolution, but they were certainly not replaced by anarchy, but by an even more tyrannical Terror apparatus such as that of Robespierre.
When I think of Enlightenment political thinkers, names that come to mind are Montesquieu (who gave the Framers of the U.S. Constitution the concepts of separation of powers), John Locke (whose political philosophy certainly concerned principles of government and not anarchy), Voltaire (who once worked for King Frederick the Great), and numerous others who were known not for wanting to abolish government, but to change its form, particularly from monarchies to republics. Rousseau, I'll give you.
Many of these thinkers were deeply influenced by Thomas Hobbes, who was the exact opposite of an anarchist.
I am completely at a loss how you can cite the Enlightenment in support of your position.
