This does not answer my question though. Why anarchists are not happy? Why can't they live in their desired society right now?
The freedom can be provided by the inhabitants of such land, either by getting weapons themselves or by paying some members of this community.
Consider a world where society lived by the anarchist principles. In that hypothetical world, most people self-organized in a large group where:
- They decided to democratically appoint representatives that flesh out large-scale agreements and called it law
- They decided it is necessary to have people dedicated to securing the lands where they live from both internal and external threats
... and so on and so forth, until they effectively self-organized into the equivalent of our current society.
Is there any difference between that world and ours? Why can't an anarchist assume that this is what actually happened (there's some merit to the idea) and be happy to live in an anarchist world, our world?
The core of anarchism is the heuristic of rejecting hierarchies and coercion. A negative doesn't make for a compelling mass movement, hence all the different flavors are attempts at imagining structures that could replace the current ones. They all have obvious potential failure modes, but the core remains - downsizing the structures of arbitrary authority.
As for answering your question, that's exactly what my comment attempted but you didn't engage with what I said. You're effectively just arguing against straw men, and have invoked yet another with "their CHAZ/CHOP".
My question is still not answered by this and I don't see how is this related at all, to be frank. It's almost as if your answer is not quite coherent.
> Some people think that murder for "dissing" them or being too rich/white/gay/smart/stupid/etc is just
The problem with your initial "question" and subsequent replies is that they revolve around a sophomoric understanding that collapses the philosophy into meaninglessness.
What I said in my first reply:
> What matters is the overall heuristic of trying to shrink the structures to be more local and manageable. Anarchism in all its various flavors isn't a prescription, but rather a rebuke of prescriptivism.
You may have a hard time seeing this as the essence of anarchism, as it is a general desire shared among most people. But really, we've got lots of anarchist thought in our political discourse. Blue team: drugs, prisons, nondiscrimination. Red team: guns, taxes, business regulations. But we have very little anarchism in our actual political results, except for maybe ancap for big businesses.
So, to prevent any possibility of stramaning, are you now saying that anarchism is disagreement with some laws and not the rejection of the institute of government?
Concretely, most anarchists still have a sense of justice, possibly even a stronger one. Murdering someone and then succumbing to (possibly organized) violence makes sense. Smoking a plant and then being attacked does not.