Anarchy is the only political system that can't technically be enforced by anyone. And nature abhors a vacuum. So it's only anarchy until people inevitably group up and compete for resources, and then the dominant group tries to maintain their influence by formalizing their power. Anarchy leads to hegemony.
So on that island me and the other incredibly dominant people would take over.... then our group would eventually clash, and form two new opposing groups etc.... until we're back at anarchy again and then the cycle repeats.
Suppose an island the size of Washington state eixisted in the middle of the ocean. It was completely uninhabited by any other creatures, but abundent with plants and organic food. Now suppose we were to have an option to make this island an anarchist society, and for all those who live in our society, who would wish to live in a lawless/unstructured anarchist world, they could live on this island. Once on the island there would be no way off, but they would be free from the control of a modern society such as ours.
Discuss the moral implications of having a branched off anarchist society and whether individuals should be given an option to live there.
This 'thought experiment' has already been discussed in depth - Lord of the Flies, by William Golding.
OK, maybe not quite, since the kids don't arrive on the island willingly.
Let's make it less hypothetical. I'm a doctor by profession. I've arrived on the island, ready to offer my service in exchange for food & shelter.
Wait, or do I have to find my own food and shelter? No one wants to exchange services/goods for healthcare on this island? Cuz I sure as hell can't hunt or build! Help!
There are no rules, so there certainly aren't any against me and whoever else can be bothered helping you pitch a shelter and tossing you half a rabbit here and there in return for the odd suture or amputation. Problem solved