OK I think I should just take on a mission of explaining to people why equating anarchy with chaos might not be the best way to describe anything and why it's probably just repeating decade-long doublespeak fueled propaganda.

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. Chaos comes from trying to control that which by its very nature cannot be controlled from a single place. Look anywhere in nature. Look to the stars or to the biosphere - do you see a ruler there? (you might say that you believe in an all powerful God controlling these things - in that case this line of reasoning is not for you) I don't. Yet do you see chaos in the movement of stars or in the behavior of nature? How come that it's fine with everything else but when it comes to humans and their business, suddenly we have to have centrally enforced rules or everything slips into CHAOS?! Is it our cultural viewpoint, which views humans as something distinctly apart from nature (thus allowing humans to ravage their environment in search for quick personal gain)? Or is it a fundamental distrust of other humans (instilled by governments imo...remember divide and conquer?) which makes one scream in horror at the thought of what might happen if people were free to do what they saw fit?

Even putting all this aside, it seems hilarious to me that the proposed solution to the problem of not trusting people in general to behave cooperatively and non-aggressively seems to always be: install a government and put some of those people (which cannot be trusted, remember?) in charge. Not even any people. But the corrupted sociopaths, which are attracted to power as flies are to shit and which only get further corrupted by the power they gain? Very weird.

To reiterate: anarchy is NOT chaos. imposition of order = escalation of chaos. Anarchy just means letting any system find its equilibrium without imposing rules on it. I get why this might be tough for many - it requires trust in other people, in nature, the world and life in general. Trust which has been abused for centuries by institutions like the church and government.

PS: I see some discussion about morality here. You don't need to drag vague moral concepts into the discussion of whether government should or shouldn't exist. Taking a look at what's efficient and what's not seems to be sufficient.