Aristotle, a conservative i suppose, felt that society, especially a democracy, cannot exist among people who were not equals. A society cannot exist, he might have said, "half upper class and half lower class." Or more realistically in his day, three percent upper class, five percent middle class, and ninety-two percent lower class. The lower class could not lead, he thought, and the upper class could not follow. He defined upper class as those who possessed an overabundance of resources; and be resources, he not only meant property, power, and privilege, but also talent, friends, good looks, etc., etc. The idea of creating an egalitarian society brings forth images of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron." This is the intention, i think, of those who define "government" , at least when the "right" party is in power, in the most positive way possible and anarchy in the most negative way possible. (Such as is done by Robert Kaplan in Why So Much Anarchy? | Stratfor.)
The upper class is often thought of as godlike, while the lower class is thought of as brutelike.. To "bend the bow" so as to aim for a better life for all should be the task of planners. Those who fear anarchy are not opposed to equality or justice. they just feel that good order is a prerequisite for those things and they are able to put up with a great deal of inequality and injustice while waiting for things to come to order. Anarchists are not opposed to order, they feel that order must emerge organically out of justice and equality, which are its prerequisites.
In a society, each should care for the welfare of all; all should care for the welfare of each. Vast difference in power, property, and prestige make this mutuality impossible. We need to learn materially what Rumi learned spiritually from the tale of "Moses and the Shepherd.."
Why so much anarchy? I ask, why so little?