I. Anarchy 

in an anarchistic society there is no public nor private property. Thereis no property. Just land and all the goods it povides. And having an army is not a bad idea 'cause maybe another capitalistic country might want to attack you.

the green man dances with us, along our journey, wailing caterwauls of grace like the waterfalls, we are singing, speaking like the tides, to the waters, where the surf revives the truth, everything has always been anarchy, yet we've gotten on well enough the love inside us we found was stronger, when we gave up and thrust all to the winds, the love inside us gave us wings, we flew again,

I am an Anarchist and wish to thank you for attempting to show people that we are not all violent and chaotic.

great video. thank you!

"Anarchy" is to be against "archy". "Archy" is whatever you don't like. What one calls a "power relationship" is opinion.

And also for the record, it is actually quite uptopian to believe that giving a small group of individuals a monopoly over force in a given geographic location and expecting them to not misuse and increase their power.

The only truly free society would be one in which every person had 100% control over his own property and no one had the right to coerce anyone else. The opposite is socialism where you own 100% of nothing and can be coerced 100%. Forget limited government because it's just limited socialism. Limited socialism is a contradiction in terms. Acorns become oak trees. Lion cubs become ferocious lions. Limited governments ALWAYS becomes tyrannical. -dharmashooter Anarchy only offers this.

Loved the video, only flaw that I really caught was about the whole private property thing. In Anarchy it wouldn't be private property it would public property, and the property you personally use would be personal property. Under Anarchy there is no private property. Unless it's anarcho-capitalism you are talking about, in which case, you are just confused.

@albania614 yes but if one country is anarchists how can they survive if they need goods from other countries that are not anarchists? Then they would have to trade, and to trade they need something that the other country wants... maybe if the entire world was anarchists then it would worked because then no one would be much more superior to others...

I agree... the ultimate new era of absolute freedom, where man can govern themselves, where we can roam free, the people of many come together, and turn our backs on the people of few... but these people have few have created so much division.. so many teachers... more teachers means more systems, more systems means more division... "Teacher! Leave us kids alone!" --pink floyd

@anarxopanathas We, humans being, must become a single thing. All togheters psychologically (not physically). If WE will become a "good" ONE, there will not a bed ones. Think about the reasons why criminals are such...

Anarchy is possible 💪✌

@shawn3975 Of course we don’t have a society that is ruled by the rich. We’ve a society that is ruled by the rich via the government. I have to say, an important difference.

@clemonsx90 Theres no such thing as "Anarcho" crapitalism, only Mutualism or Agorism. Btw i didn't fully understand what you typed. Allso sorry for the late response

I was talking in general...not about the exceptions...and if there was no rule against murder, overpopulation would be a problem no more.

ENTROPY...ORDER ALWAYS TURNS TO CHAOS.CHAOS IS THE NATURAL ORDER.PURE ANARCHY FOR ME PLEASE! PEACE BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

Anarchy is the future, but its a long way away from now, as it requires many evolutionary stages to get to that point.

@ProAmericanCommies Yes men, you arent false at all. The real communism and anarchy are really close to each other.

If individualism and freedom is anarchy, then I'm proud to call myself an anarchist.

Thats how Soviet Union Worked from 1985+

Well aren't you pleasant? Who's naysaying? Do you deny that anarchist systems that have been put into practice have had their own problems and pitfalls? What about rampant sexism on the part of CNT workers in Catalonia, which CNT militants railed endlessly against but couldn't prevent? Or do mean the comment about the troops coming in before an anarchist society can address those problems? Because it has happened almost every time. I don't trust the state to let anarchism happen. Do you?

I WOULD PREFER A MINARCHY ANYTIME OVER AN ANARCHY! A good Minarchy would have a small government that would be democratically elected by the people and for the people to serve the people under four porfolios only: 1. Defence / protection of borders; 2. Representation of the unity of the whole nation before other nations; 3. The making and management of money; and 4. Management of privatize land. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH GOVERNMENT! PEOPLE WOULD THEN BE FREE TO DO AS THEY PLEASE!

IF a person in an anarchist community decides not to recognize their actions as criminal, they should be expelled from the community and not be welcomed by others who hold the same laws, until if/when they change their mind and make restitution. In the case of severe crimes, I would agree with imprisonment, in order to protect the general populace, NOT as punitive vengeance. These are all just MY opinions and don't necessarily reflect anarchism as a whole. Sorry for the length of the response

As for punishment, laws should be decided democratically by the community (think of an anarchic system as something like a parliament where everyone in the community is a legislator), and a general consensus should be reached that "If you want to live here, our rules are:..." Someone convicted of a crime should have the right to say that they do not recognize the law they broke as being just, and refuse to recognize their actions as a crime. (cont with an important "but" for that last point!)

And in the example of community C starting a war but all the other community's fighting C back I must ask. WITH WHAT? Pleas explain to me how these small community's each supposedly devoid of government except the councils manage to miraculously raise army's to fight C wich has obviously been preparing because that's what you do before you go to war. This is completely ridiculous.

You're suggesting that people won't seek to better their situation in such an environment? If they're that lazy then they deserve their fate. No one should be robbed to pay for an able bodied man to sit around, and drink all day. There are third, and forth generation welfare recipients in America who stand to make more money by staying on welfare than by finding a job. They're being paid to stay poor. They simply have no incentive to help themselves.

Nonsense, most likely crime filled communities with mass unemployment will simply have no access to credit or insurance, as has always been the case in the past and largely still is. Extensive welfare may be damaging, but one cannot better ones self if one is not educated, and one cannot seek re-employment after an (in your world small) economic downturn if one is ill and unfed. In the same way one is unlikely to consume if insecure, China is suffering such a problem and Britain did.

A few free riders aren't an issue, and coercive taxation doesn't solve the free rider issue anyways. Everything is profitable if it's done right. Since insurance companies stand to lose a lot of money to claims of theft they'll fund security agencies to investigate crimes, and pursue criminals. People confuse this with paying for personal bodyguards which of course is quite expensive, but with the insurance model even poor communities can afford security services.

His existence is not an argument in itself. Yes, they were pretty much at the front of the argument against national insurance over 100 years ago. However valuable you may judge the community function of such clubs, they had nowhere near the funding to ensure social mobility through education and, as communities were divided by wealth, those in poorer areas enjoyed depleted functions. It is no wonder that such poverty and social divide existed.

Hayek doesn't speak for all Austrians economists. Murray Rothbard was the first openly anarchistic Austrian economist. Are you familiar at all with fraternal societies? They were also called friendly societies in the UK. They were in effect crowd funded insurance companies for the less fortunate, and historically they worked beautifully until they were bullied out of the market by state social programs. When the people have less disposable income due to taxation, they donate less to charity.

2. You said that the provision of public goods and regulation would be administered privately. However, by their nature, neither of these services are profitable and so at least a small public body would be required to let them out. As for law enforcement, what you suggest would leave poor communities largely lawless and unprotected. I can only see what you suggest leading to the multitude of issues associated with gated communities.

1. Yeh, I'm very aware of Hayek. I'm also aware that even he was in favor of a small, state-provided safety net to prevent poverty. What you speak of is what we in the UK call a 'Victorian attitude' to welfare and is one which lost out in the debates which led to the implementation of the Liberal Reforms in the early 1900's. Underprovision of sick-pay and education amongst other things, coupled with charity, ensured a great deal of the workforce was under-productive and under-consuming.

The whole boom bust cycle is caused by government/central bank manipulation of the money supply, and interest rates. Look up the Austrian business cycle. What do you mean by private tenders for public goods? There'd be no "public" money as there would be no state, or taxation. There could be charity organizations that manage a pool of donated funds, and divvy it out to whomever they deem needs it most.

Yes but, whilst we both agree that too much is taken and wasted, a great deal of taxation goes into both infrastructure and the provision of welfare benefit, without-which many would fall into poverty during economic downturn. In my country (the UK) government is necessary in order to ensure the construction of great infrastructure projects which cannot necessarily turn a profit but benefit local households. You have not answered my query as to who would let out private tenders for public goods

I was arguing that a lack of state would inevitably lead to capitalism and private ownership as it is intrinsic to human nature. I must admit i find your argument fascinating and would be very curious to see how a fully capitalist society would pan out over a couple of centuries. However, though I do think that yours is a far less naive theory i can't but believe that it would lead to extortion and the under-provision of public goods and infrastructure.

Suppose a large chemical company had to get rid of some toxic waste. They could pay to dispose of it properly, or they could just dump it in a swamp somewhere. In a statist system the swamp may be "public" (read gov't owned) property in which case all the company has to do is bribe a few officials to get away with it. If the swamp however is privately owned the owner could sue the chemical company for dumping on his/her property.

AV "Private profit in of itself is not a bad thing if it's gained through voluntary transactions." I agree. Commerce is good. I disagree that private property rights make it difficult to get away with polluting others' private property. You'd simply need to reach an agreement for compensation. It's only those who are not property owners who would be left without a voice. "Collectivism" is not the same as common ownership, which promotes diversity and empowers free-thinking individuals.

Private profit in of itself is not a bad thing if it's gained through voluntary transactions. If you can make a product at $10 a unit, and consumers are willing to pay $12 there's nothing wrong with that at all. In a system of strong property rights brought about by a decentralized system of arbitration it would be very difficult to get away with polluting other people's property. Also I don't see how collectivism would prevent malicious actions against other's persons, and property.

It follows that if the workers own the factory, they have a duty to each other and to the society to defend it from some random drunken vandal. Anarchism (libertarian communism / libertarian socialism) does not oppose law and order; it opposes illegitimate and unjustified authority. The workers are the legitimate owners because they are the most directly affected and responsible for production. However, each member of society has some decision-making authority in factory operations.

You have dodged the question. If a random drunk enters a communist factory, and starts destroying equipment what will the communist workers do? I imagine they'd use a degree of force to remove the drunk from the premises. In which case communal ownership is no different than private ownership. Private property is exclusive. So unless every single person on the planet has a claim to it, it's private property just with a lot of owners.

You claim the world has never seen true capitalism. I wonder if you can tell me what "true capitalism" would look like and how it could exist without state protection. Once you claim the right to violently deny others access to some natural resource that you've claimed as your own, you're effectively a statist. "No one takes food out of your mouth by offering you a job, quite the contrary." That's my point. Capitalists are able to make this offer because they control access to resources.

Again, why would a person freely choose to do another person's work? The answer, of course, is that no one would. The capitalists own the jobs. They own the jobs due to the fact that they own the capital goods, the means of production, the society's natural resources... all the things necessary to produce wealth. To your second point, history shows that capitalism aggressively seeks to expand the market. It always has. It always will. That's its nature.

Again how is paying people to help you make the most of your property exploitative, or coercive? They get paid, and you get the help you need to do whatever it is you're trying to do. Capitalism is win win. Communism can also exist in a capitalist society. Nothing is stopping a group of like minded communists from pooling resources, and homesteading a farm, or factory somewhere.

That's how things work in this world. If you don't work to acquire the things you need to live, you'll die (unless you can find help from others.) It's not anyone's fault, that's just the reality of life. The few people incapable of working due to illness, or injury can find help in charity. For everyone else, there's no excuse. If you starve to death because you were too lazy to work either for yourself, or for someone else then that's your own damned fault.

AnonVoluntaryist "The thing is that in an anarchist society no one would be able to dictate "We shall have communism." or "We shall have capitalism."" That's right! In an anarchist society a sufficient number of people will have reached the understanding that capitalism is exploitative and coercive and completely unnecessary. What you will never see is a world in which anarchists allow capitalism to persist unchallenged. That's like asking a neighbor to ignore screams coming from your basement.

AnonVoluntaryist "Even under corporatism in America you don't need to be employed to survive so this argument is already false." We can't all be capitalists, AV. Most of us have to work for a living. And if we can't find employment and aren't lucky enough to find help, we will not last long. Regarding your "machine" argument: How would Man A afford to pay Man B to help him run his machine?

Well the victim could get away, and want to get back at their would be murderer, but no I meant: "defense, and/or retaliation from the victim, or their family *respectively*" For example the family of a murder victim could hire a detective to find the murderer, or it could be part of the agreement with the victim's insurance company. Regardless the insurance company would want to catch the murderer before they strike again to avoid having to potentially pay out another life insurance claim.

Ayn Rand was a minarchist. In war it is far more costly to attack than it is to defend. Offensive military operations on the scale that we know today would be impossible to finance without taxation. Can you imagine anyone paying $700+ billion a year out of pocket when they could make far more profit investing that money into something productive instead of destructive? You can't have war profiteering without the state.

Cells don't have free will. Individual human beings do. Direct democracy on a global, or even national scale would destroy individual free will. Direct democracy is two wolves, and sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Your system would require force against dissenters, and non participants therefore it is unethical. Anarchy, regardless of the economic system proposed, is simply about maximizing the free will of every individual = No rulers.

Hierarchy is Greek for "holy ruler." There are no "holy rulers" in capitalism, but besides that the word hierarchy has a much different meaning in modern English. It's simply a organization structure, generally vertical, but hierarchies can also be horizontal. Technically all human relationships are hierarchical in a sense. Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything you don't want to do to survive. It's quite possible to survive without employment even in a fascist system like the one we have.

People are not a hive mind. Every individual has their own self interest at heart. This means that individuals who share similar interests tend to group together to help achieve their common goals. This is individualism. The only people who can decide if a trade is fair is the people involved in the trade. You may not think one of them is getting a fair deal, but you don't have the right to make that decision for them. Value is subjective.

State communism isn't really communism. Communism is just what it says on the tin. Communes = communities voluntarily formed for mutual benefit. Personally I prefer anarcho capitalism, but I have nothing against anarcho communism, except for those anrcho communists (who aren't really anarchists) who'd hold a gun to my head for paying people to help me, or being paid to help others.

"but i dont think robbery would occur so often, because a robber could go to the store and take what he needs(!) legally in a non capitalist society" There's no incentive for the store to give stuff away. There's no incentive for anyone to stock the store. Communes can work, but they work best in small decentralized communities. There's nothing wrong with paying people to help you though; i.e. capitalism.

You could contract an insurance company to compensate you for damages resulting from theft, or fraud. Insurance companies would thus have an incentive to fund private security companies to investigate crime, and patrol high crime areas in an effort to prevent crime. However just like the police today. If you're the victim of a crime they likely won't be able to get there in time to help you so your best bet is to have the option of protecting yourself available should the need arise. Buy a gun.

There can be leaders in anarchy, leaders in this sense are people whom others choose of their own free will to follow. Governments do not have leaders, they have rulers. The difference is that rulers force compliance, and leaders do not. If you look at modern representative democracies: those who lose the vote, or choose not to participate are forced to comply with the edicts of the majority's representatives. This isn't right, this is a violation of individual free will.

The video didn't say there would be no money, there would be no centralized currency, but that's not what money is. Money is simply any commonly valued commodity that can be carried on one's person. As for foreign invasion, it's the same reason America has never been invaded. It's incredibly difficult to conquer an armed society. In anarchy there'd be no gun prohibition so everyone in society would have access to the means of repelling an invasion.

Your confusion likely stems from the word hierarchy. Translated from Greek hierarchy means "holy ruler." There are no holy rulers in capitalism. In modern English hierarchy simply means an organization structure. Hierarchies can even be horizontal. There are a number of peaceful, voluntary hierarchies in the world: Doctor - Patient. Parent - Child. Mentor - Student. Experienced - Inexperienced. Employer - Employee. The list goes on.

According to anarcho capitalist theory the market would take over the desirable services of the state; i.e. police would be replaced with private security funded by insurance companies. Courts would be replaced by 3rd party arbitration, and mediation agencies. Market competition would prevent any one company from becoming a monopoly, and thus a new state. As for welfare; private charity has historically done a better job of helping the poor, and would still exist in the absence of a state.

The thing is that in an anarchist society no one would be able to dictate "We shall have communism." or "We shall have capitalism." These systems can only come about through the net effect of human action. I imagine nations that have historically had state communism will have anarcho communism. Whereas nations that have historically had state capitalism, or corproatism will have anarcho capitalism. People will use whatever economic theory they know best.

Even under corporatism in America you don't need to be employed to survive so this argument is already false. If Man A builds a machine, but requires Man B to help operate the machine, would you call it exploitative for Man A to pay Man B to help him run his machine? Would you rather Man B, and Man C take the machine from Man A despite the fact that without Man A the machine wouldn't exist?

You can't distinguish between private, and personal property. I've yet to meet a left anarchist who can. Generally the argument is that means of production should be owned communally, but then how do you define a means of production? Aside from obvious examples like 3D printers. A toaster produces toast. A car produces transportation. A house produces shelter, and comfort. Who draws the line? The problem is that whoever draws the line between personal, and private property becomes the state.

You suggested that the means of production would be publicly owned, which lends its self to the idea that goods would no longer allocated by the laws of supply and demand; this would not happen in absence of a body to enforce it. Regulation of the free market needs to be centralized in order to be effective, whilst a lack of accountable government institutions and law enforcement and leave a power vacuum anyone could fill, most likely those with the greatest wealth.

You may be right about some of those, but probably not Stirner and definitely not Proudhon. Regardless, there was never any such thing as right-wing anarchism until Rothbard decided to try to hijack the word in order to undermine traditional (anti-capitalist) anarchism, as even he admitted (just like the word "libertarian" was hijacked before that). Of course, you can call yourselves whatever you want, but anarchists will just continue to correct you.

isn't inconsistent with a free anarchist voluntary society to forcefully stop the voluntary hierarchy. in an anarchist society, can't anarcho-capitalist and anarcho- communism and other forms of anarchy with at peace with each other in a truly free society, you can have socialist (understand i know that i many more) communes and capitalist communes like side by side peacefully and as long as neither violates the others right and initiate involuntary force. the benefit of anarchism is free choice

I'm not talking about what I want, I'm talking about what would happen if there were no rules. Human's wouldn't suddenly stop bartering and trading; that's how we've always been.Therefore if you removed government regulation it does not follow that all businesses would suddenly become cooperatives as there would be no one around to enforce this rule and we can only assume people will continue to invest in businesses at will. You're ignoring the fundamental nature of economic human interaction.

No. What you're talking about would result in a free-for-all where those with the best weapons make the rules. You'd have a situation where resources would be allocated according to whatever laws those in power saw fit. A more equitable and just society would be one in which the people who did the actual work had ownership and control of the product of their labor. That's the only way to make a centralized government unnecessary.

Absolute nonsense, public ownership would require the implementation of law to ban people buying shares in companies (which is, by the way, an excellent way of encouraging investment). Without law and government people would barter freely and anyone could buy anything. The free market is simply the allocation of resources according to the laws of supply and demand; this occurs in absence of government regulation.

Urban communities relying on job seekers allowance and council housing would either starve or attack wealthier communities to avoid this. You're asking for class warfare, structural unemployment and no nationally funded infrastructure projects. Without police or welfare crime rates could only rise, leaving private/vigilante security, informal sentencing and lynch mobs. Like it or not there are failing in a free market, and an accountable, formal body is the best way to correct them.

The examples that are used in this video are not helpful reason being IT IS NOT ANARCHY anarchy is without ANY form of government there would not be any so called divisions or sections this is not and example of anarchy this is a republic or representive government where they pick people to represent them anarchy is no government no morals no god..every man for himself human anarchy does not allow any of this so this video is ill informing

You're the one that's made a video and posted on youtube. You should be the one giving arguments and not me. Anarchy has been defined by the people conforming the movement. You want an argument? Ok. In "the conquest of bread" Kropotkin says "we shall go to the countryland and give them what they need. Tractors and machines to work the ground. Without asking anything in return. They will, then, give the food of they harvest to the cities". I'm not quoting word by word.

RU-vid ain't really the place to be learning about anarchism. Hard to explain it in 500 characters and a lot of stupid people out there. Funny you say noone will create for you a pc if there's no money. Last time I checked free software was pretty good. Never heard of free software? Technology is one of few things were people really share. There's lot of info to learn on the internet about almost everything.

The video mistakenly notes that "private property" would exist in an anarchistic society. In fact, while "personal property" would of course remain, the claim of "private property" from an anarchist perspective is invalid. For instance, private control of energy production, infrastructure, telecommunications, factories...in an anarchist society an overwhelming majority would see all these as illegitimate. They would argue that the legitimate owners are not the bosses, but the workers themselves!

total absence of rules does not bring chaos? Chaos is good and brings people together in time of great need like u say. There is a difference between total chaos and chaos in a particular system. if there is no system how will u define total chaos then? And please remeber that normal people desire to do good. All other wanting power will do harm in chaos but i believe they are outnumbered like the world is today. a few rich. they won't last long.

yeah its possible but the people would have much greater control. for example if a corp decided they wanted to start taking things by force then.... if and only if people are ready for this type of society... the people that employ them would stop paying them and start paying other corps to take care of the problem. now cops are doing essentially the same thing but there is no recourse.

i like your video, its simple but quite true. but dont forget to mention those communities could form up even in a capitalist state to start anarchy. if everyone was one day engaged in such communities, the state would be useless and could be getten rid of easily @ Byronjesk6004: you would call your friends and neighbours (your community). but i dont think robbery would occur so often, because a robber could go to the store and take what he needs(!) legally in a non capitalist society

space missions would be done by private research parties, privately funded unless said 'group councils' could negotiate and appropriate funds or official trade. theoretically in my mind, a large volunteer perogative from an informed, interactive, and united way ask for volunteer donations of money/volunteers/shovels could work in regions like the united states if a disaster were to happen.

Community C could hypothetically overthrow the others & their societal structure would become the one in play. Even if other communities try to stop C, war could just as easily come again from anybody or worse multiples at the same time w/ varying agendas. Some might not even want to get involved, nor do they have an obligation to. This model goes off the assumption that everyone wants to maintain the current anarchy system. It's like the idea of communism, great in theory but impractical.

So these anarchist regimes used councils to rule itself. Doesn't that make it not an anarchist state? The council creates a state-like hierarchy. Now I am not opposed to hierarchy, but only state hierarchy as it is achieved through violence. And when the private property is limited, how is it to be limited? Can it not only be limited through force? And I will certainly look up the documentary you mentioned. Sounds very interesting.

Anarchism is one of the socialist currents and is inherently collectivist. All anarchist regimes that I know of used the principle of councils to rule itself and actually did it quite well. "Where do the resources come from?" They are there and they are owned collectively to be used by all. Most currents of anarchism admit some private property but they usually limit it to personal items. Look for a youtube documentary on how things worked in Aragon and Catalunia during the civil war.

Anarchy is the absence of an Archos (established power) not the absence of a Nomos (rules or norms) that is Anomy. If anything, anarchy, has loads of rules they are just self imposed and are based on a secular morality. An anarchist might decide to dye textiles for a living. In the process he might just throw away the waste onto the streets (as there is no Archos to impose a fine for soiling it) yet he will not do it because it is immoral to damage other peoples environment.

No... not really. I'm actually very sympathetic to anarchism. Just not these collectivist anarchist philosophies. I'm only opposed to the initiation of force. I see these boundaries drawn on the fictional map and I can't help but think that there is force put into effect to make things happen collectively. In the video the idea is presented that a council decides to build a road. Where do the resources come from to build this road?

well its about believing in the good of people. In anarchy people would believe in freedom and collaboration so a starving country would receive help from the other communities. I know its crazy but under anarchy people would have to travel and be educated through arts and letters. the communities would be stable entities but individuals could travel from group to group participating through direct democracy to the management of the group.

The problem is violence. peaceful societies usually go extinct the minute some other violent, militant group discovers them. any agent on any level acts according to its interests in a given situation. any individual must be able to self-defend, or otherwise a violent agent can abuse that individual. the problem is violence. the rule of law is lower in energy than any individual having to self-defend on his own. this is why the state exists.

I disagree with your conclusion, despite the fact that I admire your well intentions. people are agents with intrinsic biological motivations. they have drives that they need to satisfy. understanding the reasons behind those drives does not make them go away. not all people are as intelligent as you are. actually, people like you are extremely rare. most people justify their ill actions with feelings. they are not bound to rational reasoning and self criticism. anarchism is not realistic

Anarchy will never be viable because, we need to leave in society, for commun benefit to have a life without suffer to survive, we are like dogs we are animals dependents and without rules we would kill each others like ants or bees without their master...I real love the ideal of we all be equal but we all are different so we all need to have different status of life...still I believe in equaty for all...I loved Vendetta because its the proof that we all need master something to rule our lifes

Ideally, anarchy would, to some extent, work. Consider a state that breaks up into small factions, each community forms a counsel. This counsel is the basis for a government. Government is define as an individual or a consortium of individual that governs a community. Therefore, there cant be a complete anarchist faction because in order to function as a faction or a community decisions need to be made and that requires a governing body, weather its a counsel, dictator or even a father.

I'm pretty familiar with anarchy. There's too many holes in the idea. It cant be explained because there's no good answer. With no police individuals in domestic violence situations, particularly children and women would have no recourse. You'd have to defend yourself and stay armed. If you're mugged, kidnapped, or being held against your will only family members and people you know would be involved in your rescue. The whole system could not function. It would look like a bad apocalypse movie.

A council deciding what to do would just be another form of a state. That's why anarchy is laughable. In Somalia the state dissolved and warlords struggled for power because they had influence on other people. Now they have three states, the transitional federal government backed by the west, somaliland and the autonomous pirating state in the north, puntland. These arose in the same way the video describes, people with influence banded together to gain power in the region.

@gayjuggalo Wow, anarchy is only possible in the long term with private property, and capitalism! The protection, wouldn't be bound by an ideal, but an incentive to keep the business, of that person property that needs protection. And private property isn't always one person owning it. I had this statist who called himself anarchist claim capitalism is one person owning property, but he refuses to look at reason, and actual real life claims.

"As far as I understand it, the word actually has the same root as the word polite. It is the art of conveying information in a politic way, in a way that will be discrete and diplomatic and will offend the least people. And basically we’re talking about spin. Rather than being purely a late 20th, early 21st century term, it’s obvious that politics have always been nothing but spin" Alan Moore

Your thinking of on too large a scale. If the world was anarchistic, there would not be countries looking for supplies from other countries. Think neighborhoods looking for supplies from other neighborhoods. This does mean some civilizations would not survive... like Dubai or any other "community" that survives only on imports (i use that loosely). But there are plenty of people who live in the middle of the desert, and have so for thousands of years, their trade is in many ways anarchistic.

So correct me if I'm getting this wrong: The video proposes getting rid of a big territorial monopolist on violence and replacing it with a lot of small ones? That's not anarchy. Yes, it's miles better than what we have now, but it's still statism on a smaller scale. Why won't you allow for competing law enforcement agencies and arbiters that need to be contracted? There is no conceivable way these entities could wage war, but there are tons of examples of states, however small, doing it.

Greed is the death of liberty & inalienable rights. Problem is when individuals decide to join a council under the goal of acquiring power or material posession. One solutions is a complete lottery system selecting from the citizen base. Otherwise representation of the citizen base will be abandoned for representation of the wealthiest population. Term limits should be mandatory in governmental position and by law forbid career politicians. It could, and does work even today.

Please don`t leave nazi-comments, or comments which contain nazi-words, because I will delete them anyway. Same goes for any kind of insults against people, groups of people and similar. Thank you. I just want to say that this line is provocative and anarchists respect freedom of choice and freedom in general, and i think your comment is close minded. And you're idea of 'modern' anarchy is wrong in my opinion, this is the same story propaganda gives tot anarchy to scare people.

This isn't Anarchy we call this Switzerland;) They have KANTONS(comunuties) and comunities decide for themselfs. And Switzerland is the only country which doesn't have regular army. You just changed a big parlement to a small comunity parlement system. İt doesnt mean Anarchy. Switzerland doesn't have any primeminister or king or president but you cant say that Switzerland is a Anarchiest country.

Anarchy implies free will for anyone to do what they want, live apart from society etc, however this implication of free will can never truly happen, someone will always wish to assert their free will to restrict the free will of another, whether this is the theft of their materials/goods, rape, murder, etc - this in itself is against free will and therefore Anarchy is the death of us all.

@stringblue im not sure what to call yours either, as for the best well thats a hard one see societys views and that of my own can be contradictory alot of times this makes it very difficult to say what political system is the best, party systems grants people unity while having them focous on the party rather than believes, and the stuff i said with fascism comunism demacracy and a republic, guess under the right circumstances any can be the best or under the wrong can be the worst

@stringblue i agree that no political ideal is perfect every single one has flaws and all have good things about them fascism: unites the people as one based on their country instead of race or creed but as we see from history can be horrible, communism: can creat a perfect society where no one envies each other but can destroy the people, demacracy: lets the people rule, but the ppl can do bad things republic: rules by the laws but sometimes the laws can be unfair, but im saying anarchy is more

@stringblue no a democracy is majority rules and a republic is rule by law america is a republic but as for the laws and stuff do you go around and break them? and if you did what would happen? you can claim to be an anarchist but if your an anarchist your going to be going to jail sooner or later in america because an anarchist wouldnt care about rules if you seen something youd take it

@stringblue but in an anarchy you have no rights, and in an anarchy you wouldnt share ideas you would just do what you want, yes what your doing is good, but what your doing is not called anarchy the band is a democracy which is a majority rule, and your comunity is a republic which is rule by law none are anarchy, im not saying wht your doing is bad, its good, but its not an anarchy