I'm not entirely on board yet with anarchism. I think a principle of organization is very important and always present, so that eventually governments are always going to form. Even if you made a Constitutional law that said "there will be no government" you need some kind of government-like structure to enforce that.
Courts are a good example of where government-like structure is needed and very important. Standardization and universalization of principles of law and justice, crime and punishment, are essential. How would this look in a place with no government? Well, according to Molyneux we just shouldn't worry about it, but I think that response is naive.
Sure, maybe we don't need to worry too much about how roads will get built and maintained, but we do need to worry about how laws will get written, agreed upon and enforced; how rational principles of justice and freedom will be maintained. I believe in limited, rational government confined by a Constitution, where the role of the Constitution is to enumerate basic universal human rights and freedoms and then beyond that the Constitution simply exists to place limits upon what government can do, reserving all other rights to the people directly.
So minimal, rational and Constitutionally-defined government isn't the same as anarchy, which is why I do not consider myself an anarchist. I think if the US founders had made a few small changes to the US Constitution, things would have turned out a lot better. The US Constitution was the first of its kind, it makes sense that it wouldn't be perfect on the first try. But it is still very good.