Anarchy

Can anyone give a coherent explanation as to why anarchy is apparently the solution to all the current systems?

I understand why anarchy might be attractive in that the individual is ultimately free of such thing as rule of law and therefore local as well as centralized government but there exists a major problem with anarchy: bandits. Bandits appear to be the downfall of anarchy in that they will fuck you in the ass until you get organized, delegate some duties to others in the organisation and form a... governing body of some kind with a branch that enforces good morals... and you see where the problem is.

And no, this thread is not an excuse to go on about why you think capitalism or socialism or communism has failed, I want to explore the possibility that there might actually be something I hadn't considered and anarchists aren't just in it because going smashy-smashy on private property is fun.

>>9
>You don't get to vote directly on the issues that impact you or that you might know much about
No, you elect representatives whether they be a member of congress or parliament and because you're intelligent and responsible, you find out which one best fits your set of values before voting for them.

>you're just given a choice between two or three groups of barely-distinguishable politicians
I get the feeling that you're talking specifically about the current American two party system which should be changed and isn't really inherent in politically democratic economically capitalist societies.

>Also in a capitalist society most power resides in the private sector, which is completely hierarchical and not at all democratic.
I don't see why this is important or how anarchy would fix this. Power should reside in the public sector and democratic government shouldn't be influenced through such things as lobbying which is a problem that can be addresses and again, isn't really inherent in politically democratic economically capitalist societies.

>In an anarchist society EVERYTHING is governed by voluntary free association. [...] It's a radically different way of structuring society.
It is but with any system you must ask yourself how can some asshole break it? What do you do when someone forcefully seizes power or rigs a vote somehow? Things that would be considered illegal under rule of law. You can say that it wouldn't anarchy any more if someone seized power but the system isn't viable until it can protect itself.

>Territory for its own sake is not a major concern of anarchists
Of course but territory, if not sea, is usually land with resources on it. It certainly reduces that chances of you being self-sufficient and should be a concern.

>Citizen volunteer forces are not a new concept, they demonstrably work.
Certainly they are not new but weekend soldiers alone are not an effective fighting force. They work along side with full-time professional soldiers.

>>10
>Implying there arent bandits now.
But there aren't bandits now. There are not armed groups of people who survive by raiding private property and enjoy raping your women and killing your men. No matter how you look at it they just don't exist in economically developed countries.