[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?