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.

>>7
>The major distinction in anarchist societies is that leaders are granted power from the bottom up, and they can be removed again if everyone decides they're not the right dude for the job.
Ideologically, how does this differ from the current system? You can argue the implementation and the existence of political corruption but a system where the public elect representatives to lead and govern can be found in most first world nations, if not all.

>realistically I imagine their best chance for survival would be to demonstrate and publicise their commitment to living in peace with their neighbours, so that to invade such an inoffensive society would be politically untenable for even the most militaristic nation.
Well, realistically, any conflict would probably stem from border conflicts. Another down-side to not having a full-time army is that you have no effective way of stopping the neighbouring country from moving their border as far as they like into your territory. It wouldn't have to be a sudden rush, they could take their time and would up eventually as just another border conflict of the like that occurs globally.

>Nobody needs to dedicate their lives to defence unless they're actually fighting a war right now.
Yes but like the other person said, you can't effectively prepare for a conflict the day it happens. You cannot train someone to fight in a unit and expect them to live after war has been declared, you need months to training to get someone to minimum standard.