Sure, since it certainly is something that is fun to examine.
> I don't think it's exactly possible to have "total anarchy." When we look at it, as humans, we want to control others (and sometimes having to resort to force). And as human beings, when people try to oppress us, we try to fight against these oppressing forces, in most cases banding together with fellow people. The concept is, there are only two sides to pick and go along with, in this case - To oppress others, or fight against the oppression. If you're going to help resist, or to help take control of others, you need to work together. By working together, anarchy is dissolved in these small groups.
Look at it this way - If someone were to agree with me, or part of what I say, at the least, it wouldn't exactly be an anarchy. In this case, either the statements that I make, or me in general, would be the authority that people who agree would recognize.
> Possibly the closest level of total anarchy we can get is when an extremely large amount of groups (I'm talking about MILLIONS of groups) that each have different viewpoints that may contradict one another's. Fortunately, well, thinking about that makes me think more about how completely impossible it is. :3
> We've gotten pretty damn close. To see it, you should look all around the world. In different countries, there are governmental issues (one part of the government doesn't recognize the authority of another side), which COULD have been caused by more local disputes. In those local disputes, some people who are on the same side in the debate might find that their side (either the radical/offensive or conservative/defensive, or however you want to look at it) is taking actions that are much too extreme. Other countries or other local groups might have their own opinions on it, creating a third or fourth point of view that goes against the initial two. This means that the neighboring groups or countries has nonrecognition of the authority that started the dispute in the first place.
Example - Poverty in third-world countries -> Lack of water -> Some people in that country find that the lack of water is creating detrimental effects and they should take action <---> Some people find that taking action is too radical, and they should leave it at that <---> Some find that to survive, they should take sources of water by force, which would create physical disputes among people -> Anarchies of many reasons and types begin -> Here in America, or wherever you're living, some people feel that they should be kind and help provide water sources for these countries, while some people think that we should be neutral and not do anything about it. Some people might think that instead of PROVIDING water sources, we should help improve access to their current supplies. -> Anarchy debating on whether we should help or not -> Some people might assume that it's not a good idea to meddle with a country at all, and let them do what they're doing, while others might have the point of view that the members of the population of that country might get hurt because of the current anarchy present in these areas -> Anarchy on whether or not it's the right thing to do (to take part in the dispute).
Simply put, we're ALREADY pretty damn close to total anarchy. If we were to create a tree diagram for each major dispute and branch it off to these minor disputes, it would be a very big and wide tree.