I consider myself an anarchist in the sense that I oppose the existence of a centralized government. Period.

But some time ago, when I wasn't familiar with the topic at all, it wouldn't even occur to me that there would be different types of "governmentlessness". Isn't the whole idea that people will know how to deal with certain societal problems better if left alone, without a top-down commanding machine? Then why are some people trying to argue HOW exactly we should be dealing with those problems once the government is gone? If we knew how to do it, then we would simply elect a government that would do exactly that. But that's the point: it doesn't work that way!

Now, don't think I'm lazy. In the past week I read hundreds of posts from old threads on the topic here, as well as many other sources and I simply could't find the answer to my question.

Please, help me understand this better.

Why are there different flavours of ice cream?

Start with reading Mikhail Bakunin. Not threads on 2+2. Really to learn these subjects just start with the fathers of the ideology you are trying to learn about it, and then move forward from there.

I think my question wasn't quite clear. I didn't ask why people have different preferences for the type of society they want to live in under anarchism. I just think that these two things can be separated from each other.

1. Are you FOR completely abolishing the government (as well as preventing any future governments or government-like entities)?
2. How would you like to live if there were no government? What type of socio-economic structure would you prefer?

My point is that there are only two possible answers to the first question: "yes" and "no". Whereas, the second question could, theoretically, have infinitely many answers. What I am arguing is that everybody who says "yes" to the first question is an anarchist and that's it. Your personal preferences regarding the second question should be irrelevant to your answer to the first question.

So, I find it strange that there is a battle going on between anarchists in the form of "you're not a real anarchist" "no, YOU aren't a real anarchist". Everybody who is for abolishing the government is an anarchist.

Once the government is gone, you and the people in your community can decide to forfeit all their private property to the common and live under something resembling ASism. If another community wants to have a free market and private property, then so shall they live.

What am I missing?

Well, I flatly reject the notions of anarchy wholeheartedly.

But I cannot really picture a society where one could have both private property and no governing body. Who would prevent someone who wants to live at 1234 Hobart Lane if someone else lives there from taking the land with coercive forces?

As far as economics... I think all economics school have to rely some forms of government mechanisms. Lets say you own farmland. You trade your grains for linens (barterism). Who would stop bandits from robbing your crops?

At the very least humans would form tribal type communities to protect themselves from banditry. And even that is form of governing body.

You people seriously need to have a ****ing summit and draw up a flow chart for the rest of us.

"I can't imagine it, therefore it must be impossible."

PS: what stops the people who are supposedly stopping the bad guys from taking your property from taking your property?

Organized anarchists.

WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS

Dudes, I am not (yet) arguing for/against anarchism with you. I just need somebody to answer the question that I asked in the title.

Once we clear that, I have other things to ask depending on what the answer is.

EDIT: my question is really directed at other anarchists in this forum.

There's Amish anarchism, eggs over easy anarchism, reverse double anarchism, baby with the bathwater anarchism, anarchism light (not to be confused with anarchism lite), and original flavor anarchism.

Real anarchists tm define property (rather than possessions) as requiring a government to exist. Any agency that enforces absentee ownership of property (eg land deeds to houses you rent out) = a government so if you support those things you don't really want to abolish governments just some parts of the total governmental structure.

Variety is the spice of life (turmeric is good too).

Can we flow chart these?

Let's say the government is somehow abolished. There is a community which is fine with the notion of private property in that whoever gets first to something, gets to own it (or some other principle). If somebody attempts to steal that thing from them, the person has the right to defend their property and/or ask others to defend it.

Would left anarchists be okay with that community existing?

Well they'd disagree with the idea that it is stealing to take absentee property. They would see the "defence" as an initiation of violence (which in many respects it is) and would view it the same way that an ACists views taxation now.

Uh, nice bit of internet douchery there. Just because I cannot imagine it does not mean I say it is impossible.

Anarchists are hipsters right? Beatniks?

They say, "I oppose government," kind of like "I don't really like the Arctic Monkeys because they're too mainstream now."

Okay, I'll stop joking, BUT...anarchy is EITHER a different word for complete and utter chaos, OR it's not realistic. Both are bad.

Chaos: No entities of any sort collect in order to achieve goals. Things either happen by accident for the good, or they don't. Once an entity forms, it is immediately disbanded because, obviously, that's no different than what we have now.

Unrealistic: IF entities form to achieve goals, then they are the same as what we have now. Maybe smaller, but they're still no different. For example, if you end the government, but you have some private firm that deals with roads in Omaha Nebraska strictly for that town, it's no different than what is there now, just a different name, different people working for the entity, and possibly different focus. It's still a governing body.

I would think most anarchists would, instead, be for much more limited government, and more community based governments that are controlled by the people more. What's funny, though, is that when they get that, they'll be exhausted, and look for more automation (like we have now).

With all that said, I don't think what we have now is the most ideal. I'm not a champion, in any way, of big government.

I disagree what we have now is perfect

Well, okay, but the difference between taxation and my example is that my example is limited to a very small area (community), not whole country. So, it's not like anybody from that community will be going to another community to steal things.

And that's not the only way my example is different from taxation. Generally, I can call something my property if I have mixed my labor with a different form of the object in question (like if I find a piece of wood and make a ruler from it). So, if a ASist comes and wants to take it from me against my will, he is in actuality taking away my labor. So, I am only initiating violence in response to his initiation of violence (unlike the case of taxation, when government is the first to initiate violence).

The difference is that it's not going to be just one firm, but many. Those that do a ****ty job will go bankrupt. Unlike the government monopoly.

Size doesn't matter it's what you do with it that counts. In your second paragraph you are assuming your conclusion by your definition of property. If you are wrong that mixing your labour with something makes it irreconcilably and indefinitely yours then you certainly are the one initiating aggression. Even if you are not wrong theft of unattended items is not violent by most reasonable definitions of the word.

anarchy= without government

no, anarchists oppose all forms of coercion...

I didn't say that just because I mixed my labor with it it necessarily becomes 100% mine. But it's no longer what it used to be before I applied my labor on it, which I could have not applied if I didn't choose to. So, the ASist, if he attempted to take away the product against my will, would be taking away my labor against my will too.

No one forced you to mix your labour. It is now (the moment of theft) a sunk cost. Labour in the past is not an item that can be stolen. Taking the physical object is not equivalent to theft of labour applying the term theft to non physical concepts will lead down a strange path. An absentee factory owner puts 0% of his own labour into the creation of a product. Is he stealing from his workers?