Comment: No...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So lots of different gangs (see in situ)


Those things are not necessary. Yes, those things (hierarchy, i.e., rulers, and a constitution, i.e., a claim of legitimacy for the immoral idea of government ---all the others are no problem for anarchists) are usually embraced. Which indicates that you do not have an anarchist society. What you have is the cylcic breakdown of society based on the error of government, replaced by the same idiocy. That is the point. It doesn't have to be that way, if enough people finally understand the problem.

It's just like not knowing that washing your hands kills the germs that cause disease. As long as nobody understands the basic problem, you get the same result. When enough people understand that organization, rules, structure, tactics and all the rest do not require giving over to the psychopaths in society the prerogative to make slaves of and abuse everyone else with impunity, then you'll see an anarchist society and truly the defeat of lawless gangs. Until then, you just get one lawless gang replaced by the next one. That is what we have seen so far, if you set the rhetoric aside.

All productive and protective and good elements in society come from the principle of anarchy (voluntarism). But people will still have this problem with the disease of government, until they learn to wash their hands of it.

In the mean time, every time the cycle repeats and the idea of government results in utter chaos and a breakdown of society, the imbeciles will scream "it's anarchy." But it's not. It's the natural course of the world in the absence of an adequate number of anarchists. And you can't have anarchy without anarchists.