[GrantSolar]

>In my country (but I guess it's the same in most, except perhaps some Nordic countries) bars, pubs and discos only reduce seating or close indoor spaces when forced to by law, in spite of the evidence that they cause lots of outbreaks.

>The government recommended remote work whenever possible but many companies just ignored it in spite of having many workers that could perfectly work remotely, and just implement it when forced by law.

I believe an anarchist response to this would be these examples are not so much cases of people (generally speaking) going against expert advice out of choice, more that it is a few individuals in positions of power (pub landlords, business owners) exerting their will (for personal gain) on many other people who are not in a position to push back. Employees who heed expert advice risk their job security and healthcare in doing so. By removing hierarchies and power we may well see better outcomes than we do at present. That is, the behavior you are seeing is the effect of a political system and it is not necessarily true that these same behaviors will exist by changing to a different political system. If Anarchism in practice would not entirely end the behavior, it removes the innate incentivization of the behavior

[luckylion]

What would the anarchist alternative be, provided everybody still needs to eat. Let's keep money as a simple placeholder for value. If the reasonable people wouldn't open the clubs, how would they make money? Okay, their landlords are reasonable as well, and don't charge rent. And their grocery store gives them food for free?

How would they determine who is so reasonable they get the reason-treatment of free food even if they provide no value themselves (no parties in their club etc).

A lot of anarchism sounds like some magical communism, where everything just works out, there's no conflict whatsoever and the (in communist countries) usually authoritarian governments wouldn't be required. If only one would let the people be free, they'd be happy, sharing, caring and all around nice people by themselves.

I get the fundamental appeal, I'm sure it can work in very small, very homogeneous groups (like a religious sect, or maybe a tribal group that has not or only been recently contacted). But at scale, and in the real world, it sounds naive.

[aarpmcgee]

To me it seems that you seem to be imagining anarchy only within the context of the current state of reality with the sole difference of anarchy being set to ‘true’. I think a world in which anarchy were dominant would be structured quite differently and involve humans with fundamentally nonviolent dispositions. My belief is that this is possible.

[auggierose]

Anarchy means that the law of the strongest rules. Not sure why you think that this is somehow aligned with non-violence.

[simoom22]

That's the opposite of anarchy. An-arch-y means a situation without fixed power structures.

[username90]

You can't prevent bad guys from forming their own power structure without some form of power structure.

[AsyncAwait]

> the law of the strongest rule

Not so different to today then, is it?

[luckylion]

Are resources still scarce in an anarchist society? Then you will still have conflict. And changing fundamental biology is probably possible, but neither a quick thing nor an easy one.

"Humans will be biologically different once we live in a new society" gets filed under magic in my opinion. Communists tend to use that as an explanation as well, and it didn't happen, and not for lack of trying or lack of commitment, I believe.

I understand most anarchists favor very localized constructs in general, what's your take why we aren't seeing a lot of anarchist communities? Is it that there would still be "the state" in the world that surrounds them, collecting federal taxes and stopping them from governing themselves, giving themselves the kinds of laws they want etc?

[cortesoft]

How would your job and healthcare be protected under anarchism?