If we consider anarchy to be the absence of central rules or coercion forces, then we have to admit that there is an inner paradox in such a concept: how can you prevent rules or coercion, without using coercion or rules?
In a sentence: "No rules" is still a rule.
Anarchy, translated from the Greek, means "without rulers". There is nothing contradictory about having no rulers
but still having rules
. If you and I agree that we should NOT steal from each other, that is an agreed upon rule, but there is no ruler. We would probably both self enforce this rule because we both have an incentive to not be stolen from.
Bitcoin is basically an example of an anarchic system working. Bitcoin has no rulers
but MANY rules
which are agreed upon by the people who run the software. There are many examples of anarchy working throughout world. In fact most of everything you do is probably anarchic in nature. "Anarchists" that I know mostly just want to see anarchy expanded into the realm government usually monopolizes such as arbitration/courts and defense. Especially in US courts these days, rules
are mostly made up by the ruling class
who set them. The rules are then enforced primarily by the ruling class. The rules many times are not be agreed upon by all parties but rules would necessarily be agreed upon in an anarchic system.
This is absolutely the case. In fact, I'd wager that a truly anarchic society would probably have a greater respect for law and rights by far than most (or any) current 'democratic' state. If you think about it, our current society has much more disorder and chaos than any society for which any Anarchist is arguing. We have laws against murder, theft, and kidnapping; but if you're amongst an arbitrary 'elite,' you can break one or more of those laws without punishment. In fact we have so many laws that the average person commits three felonies a day
, and anytime a state (in the generic sense) prosecutor wants to see you in jail, he can do so.
Too many rules is the same as no rules at all.
I'd also like to note that number and scope of rules/laws is one thing that has not been subjected to the free market yet.