What is "Power" and what is anarchism and is it even possible.

[Link]

There is hard power which is through threat of brute force. There is soft power which is convincing a person they ought to do something for reasons other then brute force threat.

There's a relationship between the two as well. There is also usually not just one source of soft power but multiple.

Power at the end is not an entity. It's a relationship.

Any expertise in any field, will have some sort of hierarchy of power. Wealth is itself a form of power. If you have a lot, you can hire people and they will do things for you and make you more money too (although you do pay them technically).

This relationship exists. There's no denial power emanates as a relationship. There also competing powers or balance of powers. Of all types.

Anarchist seeks to level the playing field. No power at all. "Government" would not be seen as a power but implementation of the will of people by people hired for the job. Mere organizers.

There is the old republic vs democratic debate. The problem with democracy is no one knows really how to educate the masses without hierarchy.

Republic problem is that how do you know who to trust? What if they manipulate you into trusting them but they are not who you think they are?

In a truest form of anarchy, money cannot exist. This is because it comes automatically with power. Money is a form of power and I don't think any political scientist would disagree.

Is an anarchy possible?

I believe with belief in unseen, there is a beauty more beautiful then outward beauty, a fear of consequence and loss more then consequence of physical world, and reward unseen more higher and meaningful than any physical wealth. If we believe in that unseen moral compass, then it can override powers that try to make us fear consequences or loss of material reward or reputation or prestige.

I think you can't get rid of wealth really, so some sort of power in that sense will exist, but you can negates it dominance, if you value people's knowledge and morality and capabilities more then wealth. Then you seek to empower such people to lead humanity instead of it all coming back to the money trail.

More problems occur when wealth and religion mix, because the moral compass is sabotaged and the hard power begins to corrupt the soft power and soft power becomes a game in the hands of the powerful and it's a cycle that is viscous.

@Ella S. I say I'm somewhat anarchist, because I believe as much as we can negate dominance of any power and flatten it to the people, we should. Part of it is training people to prefer the unseen beauty to outward beauty and unseen sustenance from God over physical sustenance, because this would result in hard power not being to manipulate people into decisions. They can override it. Part of it is for everyone to get educated about ethics, humans rights, economics, to their best of their abilities.

I also came up with a model that we can have "mini parliaments" like jury duty, where everyone who is drawn to the duty of parliament, will have to study the issue and get as much background knowledge and viewpoints on the issue, then vote. This is without "party partisanship". Just like a jury is drawn, we can do this with every legislation to vote on.

I also believe in some hierarchy of expertise and knowledge is going to be maintained, but that people should be more opened minded to change, and that knowledge as much as possible should be decimated to society by those who know while those who don't should seek it as much as possible.

Otherwise, even with a system of parliament voting happening like jury duty, it will be manipulated by those in top power and money trail will have an effect, etc, if people don't seek it upon themselves to understand deeply and become enlightened about the issues.

 

[Ella S.]

There are a lot of conflicting anarchist philosophies out there, some of which are borderline mutually exclusive. The (post-)leftist infighting gets pretty strong around the subject. Really, I think the only ideas that anarchists agree on are that they reject hierarchy and that anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism. Even defining hierarchy can be a bit of a hassle sometimes.

I've read the usual suspects. Bakunin, Goldman, Proudhon, Camus, Stirner, etc. They don't fully agree with one another, either. I don't say this to lend legitimacy to my perspective, but to point out that my perspective is my own. I don't represent the views of anarchists as a whole or the concept of anarchism. I'm only approaching this from my individual standpoint, and it should not be seen as a reflection on other anarchists or anything like that. In fact, I know that many other anarchists would disagree with some of what I say here, but I also know that some would agree, too. Then again, that could get into its own debate surrounding who really "counts" as an anarchist.

Personally, I don't see anarchism as a quest to negate power. I don't see anarchy as a negative state at all. I don't see it as merely the absence of something.

To me, anarchy is about empowering everyone to be self-sufficient and independent, so that they don't have to participate involuntarily in any kind of relationship. It's about giving what you can spare rather than charging for it. It's about taking what you need from those who generously give with no strings attached. It's not about having no power, but about having the power to determine your own life. It's not about abolishing property, but abolishing public property and giving control over personal property to those who truly own and use it.

I tend to think of it less like the abolition of power and more of a distribution of power, so that everyone is their own ruler. It doesn't necessarily rob the experts of their power, but any power they have over us is power that we voluntarily give them and can voluntarily take away at any point. That's really the crux of the matter; voluntarism.

I think that's only truly possible in decentralized, horizontal affinity groups. Such groups do exist, though. There are plenty of anarchist communes, of varying sizes and ages. They even manage to interact with one another in horizontalist fashions, providing mutual aid to each other through anarchist programs.

In that sense, anarchy already exists and it's already working. I don't really see that there's much to debate there.

Yeah, to some extent, a commune might rely on importing resources from a local capitalist or state socialist society. Not all of them do. Many are self-sufficient. Even the ones that do, though, do we negate anarchism simply because anarchist communities engage with non-anarchist ones? Do capitalist states demonstrate the failure of capitalism when a mining town has to sell its coal in order to import food from a farming town? I don't think so. The only difference is that, in anarchy, the excess is freely exchanged without an expectation of compensation.

I don't think voting is very anarchist. I think it's democratic, which is a form of majoritarian authoritarianism. Anarchy is, in my opinion, not compatible with democracy. Quite the opposite: I think anarchy has emerged, in part, from critiques of democracy.

I have no interest in getting rid of experts. Only their ability to tell me what to do with my life. I liken it to that saying. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends when it hits my face." It's on me to decide whether I seek out and follow expert opinion or not. It would be intelligent of me to do so, but I shouldn't be forced to.

I think that's the major difference.

In fact, I don't think anarchy can exist without power. Some amount of power is necessary to provide for the needs of anarchists and to oppose hierarchy. It's as much a game of power as any other political philosophy is. The only real difference is that the people who have the power are anarchists, and so they wield that power according to anarchism rather than authoritarianism.

 

[Link]

I don't think voting is very anarchist. I think it's democratic, which is a form of majoritarian authoritarianism. Anarchy is, in my opinion, not compatible with democracy. Quite the opposite: I think anarchy has emerged, in part, from critiques of democracy.

It critiques republic facades that claim to be democracies but really are oligarchies making people believe they have a say.

 

[PureX]

Anarchy is a pipe dream. Within an hour of the elimination of any imposed government a new one will emerge. Probably via the force of violence.
And even if anarchy could exist, it would be totally exhausting with everyone trying to maintain their sovereignty Against everyone else.

 

[Heyo]

Anarchy is a pipe dream.

Wrong, but ...

Within an hour of the elimination of any imposed government a new one will emerge. Probably via the force of violence.
And even if anarchy could exist, it would be totally exhausting with everyone trying to maintain their sovereignty Against everyone else.

... these are valid observations.
You can't have anarchy in a society where people don't know what anarchy is, or don't like it. An anarchist revolution is a pipe dream.
The relation between anarchy and democracy is about the same as between democracy and dictatorship. It takes more work, it takes an informed citizenship, it takes vigilance.

 

[Nakosis]

There is hard power which is through threat of brute force. There is soft power which is convincing a person they ought to do something for reasons other then brute force threat.

There's a relationship between the two as well. There is also usually not just one source of soft power but multiple.

Power at the end is not an entity. It's a relationship.

Any expertise in any field, will have some sort of hierarchy of power. Wealth is itself a form of power. If you have a lot, you can hire people and they will do things for you and make you more money too (although you do pay them technically).

This relationship exists. There's no denial power emanates as a relationship. There also competing powers or balance of powers. Of all types.

Anarchist seeks to level the playing field. No power at all. "Government" would not be seen as a power but implementation of the will of people by people hired for the job. Mere organizers.

There is the old republic vs democratic debate. The problem with democracy is no one knows really how to educate the masses without hierarchy.

Republic problem is that how do you know who to trust? What if they manipulate you into trusting them but they are not who you think they are?

In a truest form of anarchy, money cannot exist. This is because it comes automatically with power. Money is a form of power and I don't think any political scientist would disagree.

Is an anarchy possible?

I believe with belief in unseen, there is a beauty more beautiful then outward beauty, a fear of consequence and loss more then consequence of physical world, and reward unseen more higher and meaningful than any physical wealth. If we believe in that unseen moral compass, then it can override powers that try to make us fear consequences or loss of material reward or reputation or prestige.

I think you can't get rid of wealth really, so some sort of power in that sense will exist, but you can negates it dominance, if you value people's knowledge and morality and capabilities more then wealth. Then you seek to empower such people to lead humanity instead of it all coming back to the money trail.

More problems occur when wealth and religion mix, because the moral compass is sabotaged and the hard power begins to corrupt the soft power and soft power becomes a game in the hands of the powerful and it's a cycle that is viscous.

@Ella S. I say I'm somewhat anarchist, because I believe as much as we can negate dominance of any power and flatten it to the people, we should. Part of it is training people to prefer the unseen beauty to outward beauty and unseen sustenance from God over physical sustenance, because this would result in hard power not being to manipulate people into decisions. They can override it. Part of it is for everyone to get educated about ethics, humans rights, economics, to their best of their abilities.

I also came up with a model that we can have "mini parliaments" like jury duty, where everyone who is drawn to the duty of parliament, will have to study the issue and get as much background knowledge and viewpoints on the issue, then vote. This is without "party partisanship". Just like a jury is drawn, we can do this with every legislation to vote on.

I also believe in some hierarchy of expertise and knowledge is going to be maintained, but that people should be more opened minded to change, and that knowledge as much as possible should be decimated to society by those who know while those who don't should seek it as much as possible.

Otherwise, even with a system of parliament voting happening like jury duty, it will be manipulated by those in top power and money trail will have an effect, etc, if people don't seek it upon themselves to understand deeply and become enlightened about the issues.

Only if we have a unified culture. Why do we not get along? We have differing cultures. Whether it religious, ethnic, political. We each develop ideas of right and wrong based on our culture.

While cultures can unify people, differing cultures will compete for dominance. There exists too many cultures running amok to allow any successful system of anarchy. A culture is always going to seek to enforce its moral values on the rest which is going to require a consolidation of power.

 

[Ella S.]

Anarchy is a pipe dream. Within an hour of the elimination of any imposed government a new one will emerge. Probably via the force of violence.

That's quite the exaggeration. It took Catalonia and France a little bit longer than an hour for the power vacuum to be filled, but if they had the guerrilla tactics that Vietnam and other modern civil wars have now, it likely could have been much longer. A number of factors impacted how those situations developed.

Of course, the next anarchist revolution might fail, but it has the potential to work out better than the last. Just have to keep learning each time, that's all. If it is a pipe dream, then we have to get as close as we can or wipe out humanity trying. Things can't continue on the way they are now.

That said, I'm not a revolutionary. Anarchy is already here. It's already working. I mentioned that in my first reply. Whatever your conception of "anarchy" is, it's probably not what I'm advocating for.

And even if anarchy could exist, it would be totally exhausting with everyone trying to maintain their sovereignty Against everyone else.

Not really. At first, if you destroy a central government, you're going to have gangland. If you have a decent dual power structure composed of anarchist mutual aid before that happens, then the anarchists simply become one more gang in the ensuing power struggle.

But anarchists could win that fight just as well as any other group could, and they would actually be better at defending territory after they took over due to their decentralized approach to organization. You can't just take out a headquarters to stop the resistance. It's a difficult thing to quell once it gains enough traction.

The anarchist groups in Catalonia and France failed to cement their position in the chaotic aftermath, and so their anarchy didn't last long. But give them a break. They succeeded at their main goal: revolution. They just didn't plan well for what came afterwards.

But if anarchists can hold enough territory, the gang wars will eventually die down, just as they would under any hierarchical state. The void in power simply has to be filled with anarchist organizations working cooperatively with one another.

The problem is that you're thinking of anarchy solely as a lack or an absence of government. You associate it with chaos. Your warped understanding of what "anarchy" represents isn't the anarchy that I support. True anarchy is order.

 

[Ella S.]

Only if we have a unified culture. Why do we not get along? We have differing cultures. Whether it religious, ethnic, political. We each develop ideas of right and wrong based on our culture.

While cultures can unify people, differing cultures will compete for dominance. There exists too many cultures running amok to allow any successful system of anarchy. A culture is always going to seek to enforce its moral values on the rest which is going to require a consolidation of power.

You're absolutely right. Conflicts arise due to differences in culture and morality. In anarchy, people would be more free to do whatever they wanted with their own lives, so there would be less incentive for conflict, but conflict could not be fully eradicated. There will always be people that are looking to gain power over others, and they have a diversity of tactics for attempting this.

That's just another power struggle, though. Human history is already filled with them. There's not really a guarantee that authoritarians will win that fight simply because they're more authoritarian. That feels like a weird form of a Just World Fallacy to me.

Actually, and I mention this in my previous reply, decentralized power is more difficult to attack. The only way to dissolve it is to dilute it. You seem to think that anarchists are just going to stand by and let authoritarians conquer them, but I don't think that's inevitable at all.

More of a threat, in my opinion, is how anarchist rhetoric will be corrupted internally by bad actors to justify forms of pseudo-anarchy that give them more power or influence over other people. That is a real issue. There are ways to counter that, too, and it again falls down to the same kind of political struggle that humanity has dealt with forever. These aren't issues that have been resolved by democracies or dictatorships, either, but they can be resolved enough for theoretically indefinite stability.

In practice, no society lasts forever. They're all changed through internal and external conflict, sometimes dramatically and sometimes gradually. I don't know why you would expect anarchy to be any different.

 

[PureX]

Wrong, but ...

... these are valid observations.
You can't have anarchy in a society where people don't know what anarchy is, or don't like it. An anarchist revolution is a pipe dream.
The relation between anarchy and democracy is about the same as between democracy and dictatorship. It takes more work, it takes an informed citizenship, it takes vigilance.

There is no such citizenry.

The bully boys exist in every group of humans. And the moment they see that group abandon organized cohesive control (government) they will immediately rise up to fulfill their desire to control and abuse everyone they can. Which will immediately cause everyone else to have to band together to create a mutually protective enforcement mechanism to stop them (government).

We have seen this scenario played out countless times throughout or history. It’s the reason humans created governments in the first place. There is no society of humans that will not immediately fall into chaos and violent abuse when their current means of governance fails. For humans to live together without destroying each other some form of behavioral control is necessary. That’s just a fact of life.

Anarchy is not possible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The most benign, least repressive societies appear to be those where the rule of law is recognised and respected. The purpose of the law in a democracy is to protect the interests of the many, from the abuses of the few.

I'm assuming genuinely anarchic societies would have no place for law; for that to work, there'd have to be a revolutionary, collective alteration in human consciousness. Because if the law doesn't prevent the strong from abusing the weak, what does?

 

[PureX]

You're absolutely right. Conflicts arise due to differences in culture and morality. In anarchy, people would be more free to do whatever they wanted with their own lives, so there would be less incentive for conflict, but conflict could not be fully eradicated. There will always be people that are looking to gain power over others, and they have a diversity of tactics for attempting this.

That's just another power struggle, though. Human history is already filled with them. There's not really a guarantee that authoritarians will win that fight simply because they're more authoritarian. That feels like a weird form of a Just World Fallacy to me.

Actually, and I mention this in my previous reply, decentralized power is more difficult to attack. The only way to dissolve it is to dilute it. You seem to think that anarchists are just going to stand by and let authoritarians conquer them, but I don't think that's inevitable at all.

The bullyboys will attack the weak, not the strong. And the strong will do what? defend the weak? Or just ignore them? In which case the bullyboys will grow stronger and attack them eventually, anyway.

The scenario you envision has everyone constantly at war with with everyone else for their own survival. It's incredibly wasteful and exhausting. With everyone trying to enforce their own place and morality in the world. It's why people banded together and formed governments in the first place. To set a common morality and to enforce basic protections for everyone. So people could live without the constant battle. But even then the bullyboys are always lurking; trying to BECOME the government so they can control and abuse everyone else. It's what they live for, and what they are driven to do. And they are always among us. In us, even. There is no escaping this. There is only the possibility of controlling it via "government".

More of a threat, in my opinion, is how anarchist rhetoric will be corrupted internally by bad actors to justify forms of pseudo-anarchy that give them more power or influence over other people. That is a real issue. There are ways to counter that, too, and it again falls down to the same kind of political struggle that humanity has dealt with forever. These aren't issues that have been resolved by democracies or dictatorships, either, but they can be resolved enough for theoretically indefinite stability.

In practice, no society lasts forever. They're all changed through internal and external conflict, sometimes dramatically and sometimes gradually. I don't know why you would expect anarchy to be any different.

Anarchy lasts about an hour. That's how long it takes the local bullyboys to realize they have an open playing field and to start using it to abuse everyone else.

 

[Heyo]

There is no such citizenry.

The bully boys exist in every group of humans. And the moment they see that group abandon organized cohesive control (government) they will immediately rise up to fulfill their desire to control and abuse everyone they can. Which will immediately cause everyone else to have to band together to create a mutually protective enforcement mechanism to stop them (government).

We have seen this scenario played out countless times throughout or history. It’s the reason humans created governments in the first place. There is no society of humans that will not immediately fall into chaos and violent abuse when their current means of governance fails. For humans to live together without destroying each other some form of behavioral control is necessary. That’s just a fact of life.

Anarchy is not possible.

I'm sorry to hear that you had to grow up in a society that made you form such a negative Menschenbild.
I was lucky enough to always have at least some rational and moral people around me. Enough to know groups of friends, where nobody tries to dominate, and new members who show dominant or submissive behaviour are quickly socialized.
But that is what I tried to say, you need well-educated and well-adjusted people for a sustainable anarchist society. I'm not sure if such a society exists on a grand scale, like any country. Maybe the Scandinavian countries? But I know that people are perfectly capable to live in a free society, if they love freedom. And I know that that love of freedom is a matter of education and socialization.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is hard power which is through threat of brute force. There is soft power which is convincing a person they ought to do something for reasons other then brute force threat.

There's a relationship between the two as well. There is also usually not just one source of soft power but multiple.

Power at the end is not an entity. It's a relationship.

Any expertise in any field, will have some sort of hierarchy of power. Wealth is itself a form of power. If you have a lot, you can hire people and they will do things for you and make you more money too (although you do pay them technically).

This relationship exists. There's no denial power emanates as a relationship. There also competing powers or balance of powers. Of all types.

Anarchist seeks to level the playing field. No power at all. "Government" would not be seen as a power but implementation of the will of people by people hired for the job. Mere organizers.

There is the old republic vs democratic debate. The problem with democracy is no one knows really how to educate the masses without hierarchy.

Republic problem is that how do you know who to trust? What if they manipulate you into trusting them but they are not who you think they are?

In a truest form of anarchy, money cannot exist. This is because it comes automatically with power. Money is a form of power and I don't think any political scientist would disagree.

Is an anarchy possible?

I believe with belief in unseen, there is a beauty more beautiful then outward beauty, a fear of consequence and loss more then consequence of physical world, and reward unseen more higher and meaningful than any physical wealth. If we believe in that unseen moral compass, then it can override powers that try to make us fear consequences or loss of material reward or reputation or prestige.

I think you can't get rid of wealth really, so some sort of power in that sense will exist, but you can negates it dominance, if you value people's knowledge and morality and capabilities more then wealth. Then you seek to empower such people to lead humanity instead of it all coming back to the money trail.

More problems occur when wealth and religion mix, because the moral compass is sabotaged and the hard power begins to corrupt the soft power and soft power becomes a game in the hands of the powerful and it's a cycle that is viscous.

@Ella S. I say I'm somewhat anarchist, because I believe as much as we can negate dominance of any power and flatten it to the people, we should. Part of it is training people to prefer the unseen beauty to outward beauty and unseen sustenance from God over physical sustenance, because this would result in hard power not being to manipulate people into decisions. They can override it. Part of it is for everyone to get educated about ethics, humans rights, economics, to their best of their abilities.

I also came up with a model that we can have "mini parliaments" like jury duty, where everyone who is drawn to the duty of parliament, will have to study the issue and get as much background knowledge and viewpoints on the issue, then vote. This is without "party partisanship". Just like a jury is drawn, we can do this with every legislation to vote on.

I also believe in some hierarchy of expertise and knowledge is going to be maintained, but that people should be more opened minded to change, and that knowledge as much as possible should be decimated to society by those who know while those who don't should seek it as much as possible.

Otherwise, even with a system of parliament voting happening like jury duty, it will be manipulated by those in top power and money trail will have an effect, etc, if people don't seek it upon themselves to understand deeply and become enlightened about the issues.

A spectrum:
Power<----->Anarchism
Possible is what's in between the ends.

 

[Link]

Only if we have a unified culture. Why do we not get along? We have differing cultures. Whether it religious, ethnic, political. We each develop ideas of right and wrong based on our culture.

While cultures can unify people, differing cultures will compete for dominance. There exists too many cultures running amok to allow any successful system of anarchy. A culture is always going to seek to enforce its moral values on the rest which is going to require a consolidation of power.

Salam

I wanted to get into this into what Islam says about human rights thread, but I believe the best way is subscription based legislation. That is we subscribe to an allowable legislation. Now there has to be some overlap and universal legislation, to make things just.

Mohammad (s) was told for Jews to judge and not make him the judge, but if they truly believe in the Torah, to judge by that since they didn't believe in Mohammad (s). But for somethings he was told he can judge, so this makes more sense, when it's more of the universal laws that should apply to all societies.

How do we decide what laws should be universal and which specific to your religion/subscription is an interesting question and should be discovered and expanded upon.

 

[Link]

A spectrum:
Power<----->Anarchism
Possible is what's in between the ends.

Salam

This is correct, but half the battle is perception. People freedom lies in perception of what power really is.

 

[Link]

Anarchy is a pipe dream. Within an hour of the elimination of any imposed government a new one will emerge. Probably via the force of violence.
And even if anarchy could exist, it would be totally exhausting with everyone trying to maintain their sovereignty Against everyone else.

Salam

In reality I don't say there wont be a government or "commander" or leaders I just label it differently. Instead of seeing it as a top down thing and partisanship we can have an implementer of the will of the people.

You might say why label it differently. Since power is a relationship in minds of people, semantics and how you perceive it does all the difference.

More over - parliament duty can be implemented like jury duty, this way, society over all is represented in legislation and it's also not party partisan game politics.

 

[Nakosis]

Salam

I wanted to get into this into what Islam says about human rights thread, but I believe the best way is subscription based legislation. That is we subscribe to an allowable legislation. Now there has to be some overlap and universal legislation, to make things just.

Mohammad (s) was told for Jews to judge and not make him the judge, but if they truly believe in the Torah, to judge by that since they didn't believe in Mohammad (s). But for somethings he was told he can judge, so this makes more sense, when it's more of the universal laws that should apply to all societies.

How do we decide what laws should be universal and which specific to your religion/subscription is an interesting question and should be discovered and expanded upon.

I think the basis for subscription is culture. In this case Islam.
IOW, if everyone subscribed to Islamic culture, the Quran as a basis for morality wouldn't be an issue.

However western European and Islamic culture have little compatibility I think.

 

[Link]

I think the basis for subscription is culture. In this case Islam.
IOW, if everyone subscribed to Islamic culture, the Quran as a basis for morality wouldn't be an issue.

However western European and Islamic culture have little compatibility I think.

Salam

I think we can divide different subscriptions and an intersection of universals. There are exceptions, for example, no child sacrificed allowed no matter what religion.

 

[Link]

IOW, if everyone subscribed to Islamic culture, the Quran as a basis for morality wouldn't be an issue.

Salam

It would be still. For example, Shiites believe in Muta while Sunnis believe it was once allowed in the Quran and Sunnah, but then the Sunnah abrogated it. So how can Shiites do Muta if Sunnis see it as Zina (fornication/unlawful sex)?

 

[Ella S.]

The bullyboys will attack the weak, not the strong. And the strong will do what? defend the weak? Or just ignore them? In which case the bullyboys will grow stronger and attack them eventually, anyway.

The scenario you envision has everyone constantly at war with with everyone else for their own survival. It's incredibly wasteful and exhausting. With everyone trying to enforce their own place and morality in the world. It's why people banded together and formed governments in the first place. To set a common morality and to enforce basic protections for everyone. So people could live without the constant battle. But even then the bullyboys are always lurking; trying to BECOME the government so they can control and abuse everyone else. It's what they live for, and what they are driven to do. And they are always among us. In us, even. There is no escaping this. There is only the possibility of controlling it via "government".

Well, for starters, you clearly aren't reading what I'm writing. I already told you that the scenario that I envision is not one where everyone is at war with one another, at least not any more than we already are.

Secondly, what you call the "bullyboys" is exactly the problem that anarchy resolves. There are people among us who crave power over others. In hierarchical systems, we reward this desire by giving them an avenue to cause more harm. They get to run for office or climb the ranks of the military, police force, or company. We hand them more power to cause more harm. Without such a system in place, the damage they can do is mitigated significantly.

They can try to construct a new one, but they will have to fight for it. They might succeed, but their success isn't surefire.

Anarchy lasts about an hour. That's how long it takes the local bullyboys to realize they have an open playing field and to start using it to abuse everyone else.

Do you think anarchy stops existing the moment someone in an anarchist group is abusive or sadistic? Yeah, you really don't know what anarchy is, and you don't seem to be listening to my explanations of the anarchy that I'm advocating for, so... I guess that's the end of the conversation until you can demonstrate that you're actually paying attention.

I have no reason to continue giving your Straw Man of my position any more of my time.