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.

>>8
>a system where the public elect representatives to lead and govern can be found in most first world nations, if not all.
In modern democracies people elect a government who then have free reign to appoint public officials. You don't get to vote directly on the issues that impact you or that you might know much about, you're just given a choice between two or three groups of barely-distinguishable politicians, and you have to abdicate all authority to one or another of them. Also in a capitalist society most power resides in the private sector, which is completely hierarchical and not at all democratic. Management are beholden to shareholders, power is conferred from the top down on employees who are deemed worthy.

In an anarchist society EVERYTHING is governed by voluntary free association. The workplace, the home, the community, everything. A group of people who, say, work on a farm together, might appoint some kind of overseer but major decisions would still require a quick vote. They might delegate someone to represent them on some broader organisation of agricultural workers, but that authority can be revoked at any time. It's a radically different way of structuring society.

>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.
Territory for its own sake is not a major concern of anarchists, who hold that nobody has any claim to more land than they actually personally make use of. It would only be perceived as aggression if people are being run out of their homes or deprived of resources they need, in which case it wouldn't be very difficult to motivate an armed resistance.

>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.
Cool. So you train people, and let them now who to get in touch with if there's a war on. And then if their isn't a war on, you let them get on with their lives and encourage them to do something actually useful. Maybe once a month everyone can meet up to touch base and do some drills or something. Citizen volunteer forces are not a new concept, they demonstrably work.