Anarchy, I must point out, is not sysnonymous, at least in in my mind, with a placid pond or a peaceful park.
Anarchy may not be synonymous with violence, but there is little to suppress it. The author appeals to the inherent goodness in people and the self-correcting nature of communities, but ignores the also inherent evil in people and the apathy & ignorance of communities. The author is a doctor, familiar with intelligent & well-behaved people who are working together for the betterment of mankind; in his ivory tower, he does not experience the street-level crime of the anonymous thugs robbing & slaying the forgotten members of society. Lacking government, justice can only be doled out by vigilanties.
In his appeal to live God's law, the author forgets that God created of governments to deal with those who don't.
Perhaps not in your mind, but "anarchy" does conjure up images of bomb-throwing lunatics and riots. And with good reason: people calling themselves anarchists have employed violence (including bombs and riots) in the past.
If that is not what you mean -- and you want people to listen to what you have to say -- I would suggest you find a different label for your cause.
I wish I could be more sympathetic with this point of view, but the author is (as most neo-anarchists) setting up a definition of anarchy that increases in defensibility the more it departs from the real thing. In logic this is known as "special pleading," and what it does is to force debate to follow terms whose definition is crafted to lead to only one possible conclusion.
The term "anarchy" has a number of possible interpretations, but it does in fact refer to absence of government in one form or another. It is not a new idea, but many of its modern adherents are treating the field as if Bakunin and Kropotkin, et al, never existed, and that's a pity, because they're revisiting old ground and missing some hard lessons of the past.
I am an enthusiastic adherent of a smaller, less powerful central government, but most of the neo-anarchists (and that strange amalgam that names itself "anarcho-capitalist") seem to me to be attempting to retain certain features of ordered society in the absence of those aspects of organized government that maintain that order. Those aspects are necessarily coercive - government is, by definition, coercion - and are necessarily restrictive of liberty as well. Gibbon spoke to this regarding the fall of the Roman Empire: ...the establishment of orer has been gradually connected with the decay of liberty...A long period of distress and anarchy, in which empire, and arts, and riches had migrated from the banks of the Tiber, was incapable of restoring or adorning the city [Rome]; and as all that is human must retrograde if it do not advance, every successive age must have hastened the ruin of the works of antiquity.
In short, what we saw in Rome and what we are seeing in this case is that order and liberty coexist in a continuum in which there is a necessary tension, and periodic fluctuation, between the emphasis of the two. Neo-anarchists are claiming that we can enjoy the fruits of order while enjoying the fruits of liberty as well, and while I won't deny its possibility I suspect, from a historical perspective, that it's pretty unlikely. More liberty and smaller government will, IMHO, necessarily mean less order, which we could live with more easily if we had the luxury of picking and choosing which aspects of order we can most easily do without. That, unfortunately, may be a luxury that is impossible to obtain.
If, as statists content, all men are fallible and thus incapable of self-governance, then why would a group of them be any more capable?
Rational anarchist bump.