I should have known it was a waste of time to rejoin this flamey thread.
What I have written is not a modernisation of anything. It is based on the original thinking of anarchist political philosophers from the 18th century which has continued through to this day. Historically, anarchism has been one of the least violent political creeds.
Dafur is not an Anarchy. Iraq is not an Anarchy. If you want to critique examples of Anarchies in action, try parts of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Try parts of the Ukraine after the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks took over. If you want to know how people who are Anarchists behave, look at Ghandi and much of the non-violent direct action which took place around the world during the last century.
Try reading something other than a dictionary which contains only a simplistic, unnuanced translation of the original Greek word which bears no relationship whatsoever to what Anarchist political philosophy is and what it always has been since it began.
The goal of Anarchists is decentralised and self-regulating society (note the word "regulating"), not disorder. I don't really care if you agree with that goal or not, but if you want to argue against particular political ideas, you need to argue against the actual ideas. And for that, you need to know what those ideas actually are.
A dictionary isn't going to help you.
OK, we're going to take this slowly. Don't worry, I'll try to make it so that you can keep up. I don't expect you to, but that's OK. First of all, you're not guilty of the same thing that you're accusing me of. Anarchy, or anarchism, isn't a single set of ideas. So it's impossible to say, Anarchists are this, or their goal is that. That may be the case of the wikipedia article you read, but it isn't that simple. I still stand by my point, though, that it is a flawed system, and that it will lead to the type of anarchy (the chaos which you disdain so much) because people aren't capable, for the most part, of self-regulation. It was Thomas Jefferson who believed that a direct democracy was a mistake because most people were too ill-informed to make good decisions for those around them. I agree. The idea of self-regulation is laughable because it requires certain restraints of the human race which I don't believe most people have. It requires people to not seek social hierarchies and to get rid of class systems, which is impossible because people, at least some people, are always going to seek out power and to maintain powerful positions within society.
It also requires people to work for the good of society, which I don't believe people will do without motivation (normally monetary) unless they live in a society small enough for them to directly see their influence on their life and the lives of those around them, which I also believe is a flaw of communism. Anarchism relies on people doing the right things for the right reasons, right thought, right action, right reasons. I don't believe that, overall, people are capable of that.
Oh, and you might want to get rid of that idea that those that disagree with you are "flamers" because it really makes your arguments look silly. If you're such an "enlightened thinker" you should be able to accept that people come from different backgrounds with different ideas. I mean, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someday anarchism will work. But I don't think it will based on the things I've seen from the human race.