[@Bishop]

The discussion isn't exactly about the practicality of anarchy, but alright.

I agree with this paragraph in its entirety.

Virtually none.

On a personal level, for the most part.

Animals don't live by logic, but yes, we as humans have done much better.

You're right, freedom is abstract. That's why I didn't use freedom as my qualifier.
Interestingly, humans are one of the only species in which not (virtually) 100% of the population wants to survive/procreate.
Not at all. That's why I never based the predefined "superior" to mean human survival, happiness, or even perceived value. Rather, humans could go totally extinct under anarchy and it wouldn't affect the point I was making because the rationality of the system is not based on its success, but rather the fewest logical flaws in implementing it.

If you want to debate the practicality of anarchy, I'm not your guy (Dark is around if you want to talk about that). I'm not a naturalist, so I also don't think that anarchy is a logical system. In fact, because of the very reasons you described, I believe a naturalistic system fails. I consider it illogical and don't follow it (and this might be where Dark responds to me because I said something negative about anarchy).