I originally posted this on another Forum (introverts.com). It is
a reply, but it considers quite common topics so I thought it would be suitable as a political opinion..

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

Despite your valid critiques of anarchy, I shall still hold on to my dreams. I'm not going to go supporting any wackos planning to overthrow the government, but if there is an opportunity to increase the scope of freedom, encourage voluntary acts of responsibility for others, and decrease the level of violence in the world state or otherwise, I will support it. In my mind these things are paving the way for anarchy. Many people are driven to good by irrational dreams.
I agree with the money thing. Bartering would have been a pain in the @$$! Imagine having to find something someone else needs in order to get something you need, especially when you have specialized in one product out of economic necessity! Running errands must have truly sucked back then!
Furthermore, I think most of us seek an optimum mix of freedom and quality of life, with something even for the downtrodden among us. But we've got a thousand ideologies that claim these ideals and most of the time is spent arguing amidst each other about which are good.

I think of anarcho-syndicalism as desirable but impossible, whereas I think of anarcho-capitalism as possible but undesirable.

but it seems to me rational to always move in the path toward the impossible goal that just seems worthwhile. No disrespect intended, but isn't that the power of religion?

Yes, but religion deals with the supernatural, whereas politics deals exclusively with the natural.

The two are interrelated. You have to have a goal in order to make use of your ideology. Otherwise the ideology is nothing but an inherited trait. Sometimes I think religion is the same way. What could be more supernatural than a dream of Utopia? And what is a better mark of faith than to try to bring it closer to reality? Sometimes, as a nonreligious (kind of) person, I see people who are deeply religious and think "Oh, ye of little faith."
So I'm weird. What else is new?

No, you're not weird. It is true that some religions have attempted to form Utopian societies. I gave the example of the anarcho-syndicalist Levelers, who were a splinter group of the English Puritans. As a Christian (and not a Leveler), though, I tend to think of this world as having certain natural limitations. So I think in terms of what is possible without expecting any basic flaws in human nature (and hence in society) to lessen or disappear. Regarding anarcho-syndicalism, which would be Utopia, I have realized three things. First, human beings are by nature selfish, which isn't "bad", but which prevents the equitable distribution of wealth without some sort of governmental influence or authority. Second, there will always be some people who behave in destructive ways and other people who are unable to survive in pure capitalism, which, because of what I mention in my first realization, is the only economic system that could exist in anarchy. Third, government social control increases to a degree roughly proportional to government economic control. For that reason, government influence on an economy can increase only up to a certain point before social authoritarianism results. In turn, however, decreasing government economic intervention, when taken past a certain point, results in extremes of economic inequality because of #1 again. Hence we are forced to concede to inequality or to authoritarianism, but taken to either extreme each results in the other. What does all of this make me is sociological terms?

It makes you smart, doesn't necessarily put you in any box. Keep in mind, sociologists don't subscribe to a paradigm (in general) unquestioningly, but switch them around like different pairs of reading glasses. Different situations require a different lens. That's why I often seem a bit erratic in my political moves. I can argue against either side and feel it is necessary to do so. You are among those gifted enough in thought to look at issues as they need to be looked at without getting caught up in the inertia of ideology.
Where my ideals stand guide me, but sensibly compared to any. Rather than trying to impose my will and blindly state mistruths to justify, I attempt to figure out how to make my ideals work. For instance, the trouble of violence makes it impossible to disband the State. So the question I ask, rather than how to get rid of the State, is "How can we decrease the level of violence in the long run?"
Humans are not good or evil by nature. They are reciprocal (want to hurt those who hurt us, help those who help us) and they also learn to think in certain patterns. A moral philosophy is better than obediance to authority in that it is a more stable goodness that allows personal autonomy.
The best way to increase goodness is to increase the opportunities for it. As fiscal conservatives note, this means economic growth should help everyone. But what happens when those who have are more worried about losing what they have than sharing the wealth and increasing prosperity for all? That is a concern.
You see, my draw toward the social sciences is an arena for slowly gaining insight into these questions. I cannot possibly figure it out in my lifetime, but I can lay a foundation or add to those that are already there.

If, a couple of years from now, there is a groundbreaking sociologist making international headlines, should I suspect that he formerly went by the pseudonym of JavaBlack? By the way, I'll try to find an excerpt from Rothbard today.