[quote=@Bishop]
[@Meta] No go on. Up until now, with real world based historical events, as portrayed in the old testament based on what you said, I see no problem. Wanna hear the credibility of the other parts...

[@DarkwolfX37]
-That freedom is only an illusion. You will be as free as you are now but instead of the leader putting a sheep's mask, the tyrant that you would have in anarchy would show his bloody wolf teeth for everyone to see.
-???? The one in charge can favor his family and friends. His family/friends gets into a fight with someone else-> even if his family is on the wrong he gives them right and executes the other party. A biased judge and jury.
- Change? Improvement? We are not animals or insects. It would take thousands upon thousands of years for humanity to naturally evolve through procreation. Here, in this day and age we are [s]nearing[/s] already there. We already have developed cybernetic limbs and implants. That's the next step to human evolution. Not through natural selection, but through cybernetic enhancements.
- Yes, so it will basically be a death sentence for murderers and criminals depending on their crime. In many states that system is already in place and people still do it. People will continue to do so and being in anarchy doesn't make a single difference. The damn leader could be a murderer and a rapist but noooo, no one can touch him, only obey.
-How the hell is that good? You gotta guess if the value of what you have is worth what the other person has. Currency is there to simplify this, to put a fix value on something. That is just regressing.
-Hmmm, basically tyranny. There is only one in top of the others in anarchy. He/she decides the rules, he/she is the government along with the people that stand by him and by that I mean armed forces.
-Well that's one good point. +1 (But as far as it concerns the current generation, they won't be alive to suffer the consequences of overpopulation so it's irrelevant)
-Not the stupid people per say. But those who aren't quick and cunning enough. That's street smart. You could have millions of people with numerous other talents, geniuses, that die because they weren't cunning/good liars/have good social skills but they excelled in their respective fields none the less. Fields that probably wouldn't exist in a world with anarchy.
-Not only that, but it would prevent [b]a lot[/b] of technological advancements.
-And lastly...ha..hahahaha No negative factors he says. Nature in it's core is going to go extinct in the next couple of thousands of years if we survive as a race that long. Earth will be shaved from every green and we will advance beyond needing that green or nature in general. We will advance beyond needing a planet. You may say that is sci-fi but even you can't deny that with [b]enough time[/b] that will happen.
[/quote]

Please quote. It saves a lot of trouble. Put it in a hider if you want, but not quoting is a good way to not get me to even respond to you.

- There is no leader in an anarchy. That's pretty much the definition of it. No governance, therefor no leader. Attempted leaders, yes, but they are simply attempted leaders. If there is a leader, it is not anarchy. Your response fundamentally doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase your intent in a way that does.
- Again, there is no one in charge in an anarchy. If there is, it is no longer an anarchy and is instead a form of government. I don't see why you're trying to argue against a factor of anarchy as if anarchy is a governmental system, when it's the lack thereof. You may as well be saying that atheists gather around a priest of some sort to learn the tenets of not having a religion. It doesn't make any sense.
- We are absolutely animals. Not only is that a scientific fact, but to think otherwise requires absurd hubris and itself is a result of being an animals. Further, insects are animals as well. And lastly, none of what you said addresses what I said. Natural selection is not just about procreation. Natural selection is the process through which evolution happens, it is not interchangeable with it. And yes, it would take a long period of time for humans to evolve through natural selection. What's your point? What about that is in any way a point against anarchy? I don't see a connection there. If you're saying that the time frame means that we currently would not gain anything from it, so what? I didn't say it as something that would benefit us personally if anarchy was suddenly the situation. It's something that would benefit the species long term majorly and short term minorly. 
- I really don't know where you got this idea that anarchy has a leader, but to ignore that factor... The death penalty is nothing like what happens in an anarchistic environment. The death penalty requires certain social systems that can only exist with a government system of some sort. In anarchy, if someone kills someone, those close to the victim will likely seek revenge. Murderers are not beneficial to the survival of a group, which is why nearly every species drives them out or outright kills them once they are discovered. 
- Currency has no set value. No moreso than anything else does. You subjectively believe that an once of water is worth a certain amount of currency. Others can just as easily view it as worth a different amount. This is no different than if you removed currency from the equation. Further, currency is imaginary. It has no use, so no inherent value to derive a subjective "worth" from. Currency does not actually exist, it is purely conceptual, which is how the entirety of humanity has managed to become indebted to a nonexistent "other" using value that never had any basis. 
- Potentially, yes, tyranny would form. Equally possible would be democracy, or socialism, or a as of yet uncreated government system. That governments might form is not an argument against anarchy, because it is self-defeating. If governments forming is a bad thing, then governments existing is equally bad, and therefor anarchy is only an even better option. Again, you don't seem to understand the definition of anarchy. You also seem to have some notion that the world is reminiscent of a pyramid in the structure of life. This is not the case. At best, you're confusing anarchy and meritocracy. At worst, you are confusing anarchy with something that not only doesn't exist but is based on non-existent factors. You mention of armed forces implies that you are confusing anarchy with stratocracy. 
- We are already suffering the results of overpopulation. There are land shortages, there are food shortages, medicine and resource shortages across the planet. Overpopulation is one of the leading causes for the actions that led to climate change and the extinction of many species due to environmental change. To say that current generations wouldn't be affected by the consequences of overpopulation is to show a lack of understanding of the world as it already is. And before David says so, yes, we could solve the food shortage if humanity as a whole decided to, but the fact that humanity uses a capitalistic system makes that supremely unlikely as there is no economic incentive to solve it.
- This is a non-issue. You are confusing knowledge with intelligence. Learning capability, not learned facts. Reasoning and problem solving. People unable to learn are the "stupid" people of the world. People who ignore or reject facts and the common reality around them cannot survive without certain social structures in place to care for them. Moreover, there is no such thing as a one of a kind genius. Eventually, the same thing will be achieved by someone else, or a group of someone elses. There is no major loss to the species if someone who is not intelligent but can excel in a single field dies. The damage is temporary if it exists at all.
- That depends entirely on what social structures inevitably arise in a given location. Most technological advancement does not require the immense number of resources that military technological advancement does. Medical, perhaps, but not technological.
- That's incorrect. Currently, humanity will go extinct within less than a millennium. Perhaps less than a century. Long before it manages to get off this planet. Further, you completely ignored what I said. I said that anarchy's nature has no negative baggage that every governmental system to date has. However, there is baggage from nature itself being reintroduced. I specified this. You ignored it. That is irritating.