Thread: Are Anarchists naive?

As this link points out, Anarchists live in a dream world of idealism. While the concept can be nice, it isn't practical nor reasonable for many reasons: What Is Anarchy?

Anarchists believe that most people can govern themselves and would be happier doing so.....t would be hard to argue that all individuals are capable of doing this. For instance, in a society that is deliberately anarchist, what would you do with a person who was severely incapacitated by mental retardation? The person might not be able to act in his or her own best self-interest or for the welfare of the society. If that person had no caretakers, what provisions in an ungoverned society would there be for caring for such a person?

Common sense might indicate establishing institutions for such people or at least some form of aid, but how would money be obtained for such? It’s certainly been the case that formerly government run programs to help such people, that are now run on the basis of charity often need more money than they can get through individual donations. There would be no assurance in an anarchistic society that people requiring extraordinary care would ever receive it.....Anarchy is an unusual concept, and perhaps expresses the desire in its most ambitious form for true freedom. It is not necessarily negative, but it may be somewhat naïve. It’s hard to imagine how anarchy could work for a long period of time in the modern world, especially since so many people appear to want leadership, rules, and some sense of governmental support.

We all want greater freedom, but, IMO, anarchy is a path to destruction, not freedom. Thoughts?