Is anarchism a viable option?

Anarchy refers to a society, entity, group of persons or single person without recognition of authority 
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law
Anarchy is a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws

an·ar·chy a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or their controlling systems

Anarchism is basically a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified.  It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them.  Their authority is not self-justifying. -Noam Chomsky

Everyone seems to assume anarchy is a bunch of punk teenagers running around with spray cans. In reality, anarchy is what we all strive for; a utopia where there is no need for rules because the people themselves know how to act. To believe anarchy works, you need to believe that people are rational. In fact, anarchy is a natural logical conclusion when you believe people are rational. Government, laws, hierarchies are all the result of people needing to be controlled, or wanting to control other people. When all people are rational, all people should be able to self govern and be self sufficient. They recognize the autonomy of others and respect it. In our world, however, people are not rational. They are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot recognize rationality even when its presented directly to them. Anarchy would work in a perfect society, and the pursuit of a society where anarchy would work is noble but foolish. People are born with inequalities, of both the body and of the mind. Some people will be innately superior, some people would be innately inferior. It is nature, biology, it is how natural selection has worked for millions of years. We can overcome our primitive instincts and not selectively breed, but we cannot resolve the simple dilemma of some people will need help from others. If the globe was 7 thousand strong we might not need organization and power structures, but the overwhelming scale of 7 billion, and rising, people calls for more efficient structures than "they will figure it out themselves". Healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure does not come about by leaving people to their own devices. Without large scale production, our world would not be efficient enough to feed and shelter itself. Anarchy places the power in the people, but I don't think the people could handle that power.  

So as a system it's not viable. That does not, however, mean that everything about it is wrong. Chomsky's version of anarchy seems to challenge power structures instead of get rid of them entirely. Getting rid of the superfluous power structures and imbalances helps any society. Our society would be better off without the rich white man patriarchy, this can be proven ethically and economically. Chomsky is right to say unjustifiable systems are illegitimate because they serve no purpose to society. The critical analysis of all of our power structures is desperately needed. Chomsky makes references to the human race not being able to see it's own demise because of all the external influences and I think he is right in that. However, removing all power structures is not the answer.