[@Meta] That where I wanna point out that you're wrong. You explicitly state that morality and abstract feelings "has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and [b]have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.[/b]"

But the world revolves around those abstract feelings and ideas. One CEO has the brilliant idea to harvest a whole forest in order to fulfill his selfish desire for greater material profit. All these actions are fueled by abstracts feelings and wanting. You can;t say that they have no effect whatsoever on the world around us.

[quote]Perhaps, but do we know that people won't self-govern well enough? Whether they will or not, the idea of anarchy isn't that it's superior because it leads to more happiness (not enough data to conclusively say), but rather that it is the most logical state to be in. Logic doesn't take human thoughts or feelings into account. So in the end, I'm not saying that a naturalistic point of view means that you should end up believing you'd be happier in anarchy, satisfied, or in any way better off. Instead, I'm saying that logically speaking, anarchy is the path to go down when taking pure facts and concrete truths into consideration[/quote]

I'm sorry but isn't it more logical to live a long and safe life than to die abruptly? Order is logical, anarchy and chaos are illogical.

[quote]it's part of why the animal kingdom is in anarchy—it doesn't exactly have a system of feelings and ideas of what "ought" to be.[/quote]

... don't know how to tackle this.
So firstly, animals also have no logic. They function purely on instinct. So you comparing the animal kingdom and how the animals are ruled by anarchy, to humans, basically means that only human animals want anarchy. Anarchy is survival of the fittest, it isn't based on logic at all, it is based purely on raw strength and the individual power to survive without anyone but yourself protecting you. Which logical being would want that?