Lets say that our government abolished itself, and left the people to try anarchy for a year. After that year, there would be a vote. If the majority voted for government, it would come back in, but otherwise, the anarchy would continue.
After tasting anarchy, would the people choose it above democracy?
Schools are labour camps.
Which flavour of ice cream do you think is going to be the next big hit? Reflect upon that. Then apply the answer to your question to your own post.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Doesn't this question sort of presume some institution to enforce and even hold the vote?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Democracy, as those who didn't believe in democracy wouldn't vote!
Anarchy is pretty much "no free lunch for anyone" (free as in "paid by somebody else), democracy is pretty much a "free lunch trough" until the money runs dry. You cannot promise people to give them free health care, new roads and to bail them out using money conjured out of thin air under anarchy/minarchism/whatever you like to call it. And that's the huge difference.
I think you would have mayhem. Not because of anarchism, but because you would instantly have a dictator rise (or more than one), all of whom would duke it out, i.e. "anarchy" in the popular sense. Anarchism, I think, needs to be established beforehand somehow and in some way. With the kind of moral hazard, victim mentality, group interests and indoctrination of democratic governments, I cannot see it being a success.
However, if you mean to say that the majority voted so, thus forcing government to abolish itself, I would make two points:
One, government will not abolish itself because of a majority. I'm sure history disproves me (USSR, but that was still one government for another, not anarchism at least)
Two, if the majority held this view then anarchism would already be present and functioning
All IMHO of course.
[EDIT: I'm still an abolitionist!]