Government provides a convenient opportunity for elites to ride the chaos and direct it away from themselves while at the same time ignoring the deaths of those who die to maintain the illusion of order.
Why should we assume anarchy implies a more consistent application of rules than any other society? The second anyone in an anarchist society imposes their will on another, they create an exception to the rule of anarchy.
Not the point. The point is that anarchist morality doesn't make an exception for one organization (if you threaten to kidnap someone, if he doesn't pay, its robbery, if the government does it, its taxation)
Similar double standards extend to the corporate world- when a poor man steals a loaf of bread he is a thief and is sent to jail, when a rich man swindles millions out of their money, he or she is allowed to retire with a payout of millions of dollars.
Well he has a point, in anarchy you are always subject to yourself and everyone around you, and what ever the consequences are. Anything not anarchy, government, tries to step in any how it can in the anarchy situation.
Anarchy involves no outside influence allowed to step in in cases of conflict; without having any significant ramifications for your actions, the rich and powerful (who would be protected from interference themselves) could exert their influence without consequence in ways that would destroy order.
Without a government and police force to protect the property rights of the elite class, there is nothing stopping the people from destroying the influence of the wealthy by whatever means they find necessary.