Just on a basic level, the way you're using that word makes no grammatical sense.

It works if you're using it as another word for 'chaos', but setting up a food bank is not exactly chaotic behaviour. Seems very sensible, pedestrian sort of stuff to me.

Take a look at the comment I was replying to. It says: "You say that like anarchy is a bad thing."

And yes, anarchy is chaos, just intellectualized.

Pretty much every anarchist I know proposes highly organized societies, far from chaos. Just organized differently than what people are used to.

I wouldn’t necessarily mind, anarchism, or libertarian socialism to use a less loaded term, being brought to my neighborhood. My issues are not with the basic ideas but the concrete implementations.

Anarchy, noun, a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Do not fucking piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining that anarchists want highly organized structures.

You wouldn't mind this you say? Because you imagine you get to do whatever you want. Let's see, in the real world, that applies to everyone. They get to do to you, how they want, without a shred of potential consequence. In a world with various methods of attempting order through consequences enacted by governing bodies, people still do very bad things to other people. No governing body on a wide scale, by your logic, must lead to pure peace and unity. Because it's the fact governments exist that mayhem exists. I already know you have zero time spent in a history book. Any idiot who spends some amount of time reading about any culture, of any time period, notices how it's the implementation of rules and proper consequences is when peace starts to manifest. Along with evenness of implementation. We can obviously argue how severe consequences should be and what rules should exist. That's always a healthy debate to have especially as economies, tech and cultures evolve. For example, certain maritime trading laws need severe, severe, severe updating since the landscape is extremely different these days compared to when they were written literally 150 plus years ago. But to piss and moan that we should just burn it all to the ground because a loser professor tells kids they wont amount to anything because of "the system"... yea, whatever.

That and while I do heavily disagree with lots of libertarians, they're about the most extreme minimal amount of government. They're more in favor of zero economic intervention and policy. Practicing libertarians normally have the go that what I do at home is free reign, but there should be a set of rules when it comes to "public interactions". Again though, they want it super minimal. Not non-existent. Dont mix them in with a bunch of teens with weaponized angst. Anarchy is a collective, "sounds like a whole lot of not my problem".

Maybe spend some time reading up on it. Libertarian socialism is the umbrella term for different anarchist schools of thoughts, it's not something I came up with. And spoiler alert, there is no one single "anarchism". So if you want to criticize it, be more precise. The US brand of "libertarianism" has very little to do with the origins of the term, they came late to the party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Also, since you seem interested in history, here are two books, that portray the communities, without them being overly dogmatic:

- Anarchy’s Brief Summer THE LIFE AND DEATH OF BUENAVENTURA DURRUTI, Hans Magnus Enzensberger

- Beer and Revolution The German Anarchist Movement in New York City, 1880-1914, Tom Goyens

> You wouldn't mind this you say? Because you imagine you get to do whatever you want.

Absolutely not. I imagine the most direct forms of democracy and ditch the representatives if they don't represent. So unlike pretty much all nations, actually taking democracy seriously and seeing it trough to all its consequences. Very different thing.

What authorities govern conduct in black markets?

Spoiler: Profit/pursuit of happiness, Common interest, self-preservation

You're very fiery, but you're really ignorant about anarchism. The largest anarchist movement (historically) was the spanish one, with millions of members, and they were obsessed with procedure. Most anarchist movements are like this, because you need a lot of procedure to make consensus decision making function.

Also, libertarianism isn't historically connected with anarchism.

> I already know you have zero time spent in a history book.

Indeed.

>What happens when someone brings the anarchy to you?

is not how that word works in english.

>And yes, anarchy is chaos, just intellectualized.

is not what that word means in english.

For the vast majority of people, "anarchy" does mean "Mad Max style chaos". You probably need to explicitly mention that you mean the specific political ideology if you are speaking to people that aren't really familiar with left-wing thought.

Move West, OR settle in the hills, OR have bigger guns OR be able to run faster, etc.

Humans have dealt with these issues forever.

Yes, why would you want law and order when you can just run into the hills?