When organising a country or a group of people in need of structuring, people tend to automatically sidestep ideologies that do not take authority imposed from above for granted.
Anarchists and other proponents of alternative rule almost by definition are seen as destructive elements in a society. Yet old time and modern thinkers on subject might have some viable and decent ideas for future state organisation.
The unwieldy mess called internet gives rise to many new thoughts and also causes many people to revisit older ideals and alternative scene is resultantly more vibrant than ever. Its frequent intersection with mainstream only adds to clout of its substance. Going about researching possibilities for anarchy as a viable alternative to a current system of government ought to be as chaotic as we can make it if we want to keep in line with subject's concept. But we need to keep in mind that whilst we're digging, results are streamlined by algorithms.
Surfing web and drawing 'chaotically' from input of various disciplines on anarchy throws off quite interesting results. Taking anarchy at face value, you realise soon your hunch as to why it has such a negative connotation is right. To be fair, situations in which anarchy gets bad press, are almost invariably justified. Not only do anarchists rear often ugly heads when they have issues with incumbent governments that tie them together as an impromptu group of people for short stretches of times only, with a negative spirit as a combining agent, seemingly too weak to justify action. They often continue to destroy for sake of destruction only.
Anarchy and regime change go hand in hand. Most of times that anarchists are seen 'live' in action, they are -true to nature of their political inclination- not organised in any way and they generally serve only to achieve short term goals before they go back to their ordinary lives. Anarchists can have very justified opinions, but in many cases their action is nevertheless condemned by majority of fellow country men in favor of a new organised government.
The situation in Kyrgyzstan during onset of American invasion most recently brought topic to bear for renewed analysis and prior to that, Iraq invasion by American troops yielded fresh material for students of international law to break their heads over in years to come.
Due to rather short term nature of anarchy when it is a 'live' concept, there is a lot of obscurity around how systems based on no rule or anarchy would be able to function in a positive way. There is no area or country in world that has seen a situation of anarchy through for more than a decade by choice. Yet this does not mean that concept is not pondered by more selfrespecting scholars of all disciplines. A quick browse on internet reveals tons of information.
The concepts that would create true anarchic systems as mature alternatives for governments are somewhat more decent than you would hope or expect, depending on your notion of adventure or distaste for your current government. By definition, anarchists oppose merely government, not order or society. "Liberty is Mother, not Daughter of Order" wrote Proudhon, and most self respecting thinkers pondering anarchic ideals agree. Kropotkin, put it, "No destruction of existing order is possible, if at time of overthrow, or of struggle leading to overthrow, idea of what is to take place of what is to be destroyed is not always present in mind. Even theoretical criticism of existing conditions is impossible, unless critic has in mind a more or less distinct picture of what he would have in place of existing state. Consciously or unconsciously, ideal, conception of something better is forming in mind of everyone who criticizes social institutions."