From the Knowledge And Wisdom MySpace group, an example of neither:

J.R. Wrote:

New Orleans following the hurricane is an example of failed socialist policies and the reason why the word anarchy has become a synonym of chaos. Without any leadership we saw what happens with people who are used to getting a free handout from the government.

If anything, what you are criticizing is not anarchy per se but one particular means towards a stateless society: the abrupt removal of the state's presence and authority in isolated locations surrounded by the prior society in an emergency situation. Just as you shouldn't expect Iraqis to suddenly understand and embrace a constitutional republic after nearly 100 years of monarchy and dictatorship (and thousands of years of tribal patchworks), you shouldn't expect the poor and sick (those who were most likely to remain behind after the evacuation) to respect a concept like property rights when their cultural environment disdains that respect and an emergency situation is quickly pressed upon them.

What would happen when two people had a disagreement?

Uh...work it out???

Generally speaking, people want to avoid pain and suffering. They want to live in peace with others and prosper. Given that, when conflict arises, the first impulse is to settle it privately among the parties involved. Simple discussion leading all the way to mediated arbitration can solve most disagreements.

But there are exceptional people who either are looking for a fight or refuse to back down from their demands. What then and what of the element intending to do wrong?

What would happen when Joe Schmoe down the street decides that while my neighbor is at work he is going to break in and rape his wife? How about when my neighbor finds out and decides to blow Joe Schmoe's head off with his shotgun?

The anarchy I advocate is that of a free market, individual rights society where aggression against people and their legitimate property is the only crime. Murder, rape, assault, theft, and vandalism would all be defined as instances and degrees of aggression. Mr. Schmoe would be a violent criminal and liable to face the reaction of your neighbor, his wife, or the people with which they contract to protect them and theirs.

In such a scenario, I have absolutely no say in whether the 12-gauge separation of Mr. Schmoe's head from reality is a fitting punishment - and neither do you - because it wasn't your body or your life that was tampered with. Physically interfering would be aggression and subject to response.

But what of wrongful retaliation? Simple: if I kick Mr. Schmoe's ass because I think he raped my wife and he can prove me wrong, then I am the aggressor and he'd have every right to retaliate against me.

All this is assuming neither of us have protection/insurance/arbitration agencies hired for us to meet negotiator-to-negotiator rather than us face-to-face. This opens up a large can of worms, but it can be simply said that solving disputes and settling injustice this way is more likely to be preferred and would probably be cheaper in the long run than fisticuffs. Again, most people (even in today's hashed-up culture) prefer to avoid conflict and act to keep their values. Wars, battles, and fighting is costly and companies would not want to waste their capital on pointless belligerence when a solution can be worked out over a table or telephone.

In essence, your question is no different than asking, "What if a bunch of people wanted cheeseburgers for lunch?" The existence of a demand will be met by a supply if the supply and the demand are allowed to meet. Substitute any service or good with "cheeseburger" and it remains the same. The key conceit to government advocates is that they think it cannot apply to "security" or "justice" when in fact there is little secure or just about the state.

I suppose when I too was a kid I thought ideas of no government were pretty cool, then I grew up and realized the consequences that such a wish would produce.

How about the "consequences" of a system of legal coercion that threatens you with police violence if you don't hand over X% of your income/sales/property value; that as a matter of boring routine ruins the lives of millions who dare to ingest substances for their pleasure and medicinal value; that assumes the right to dictate who can sell what, for how much, and where; that looks you in the eye and says you aren't smart enough to live your own life so just let the Officials take over this one aspect of it...and then another...and then another; a system that demonstrates the lie of We The People each time it acts against the objection of a citizen.

I'm not a cost-benefit analysis guy, but if you want to argue that way, I'll be more than happy to take that route.