Let’s try it?

Most of the time people are pretty cool, but when people aren't cool all the cool people need to be like "hey, that's not cool, so be cool or you need to leave" and thus the coolness is enforced.

Additionally because of game theory, a "rat" will always exploit everybody's chillness. It'd be great to not spend a cent on the military but Russia is a rat that uses this opportunity to invade its neighbors. Inevitably you will have to invest in some kind of law enforcement.
- Anarchist movements have military as well, in need they can pick a commander to lead them whose power can be dissolved at any time even without finding an alternative commander. Commanders power is not enforced and anyone can not listen to them. These armies where most efficient in the past, but they were most of the time defeated because both right-wing and so call "left-wing" communist fight them. This is what happened during anarchist movement in Spain, which no one seems to talk about.
This guy cools

Republicans: Exist

Direct democracy isn't supposed to be passive, but in every anarchist community, it is collectively enforced. Republicans (and anyone else) should be actively fought not to be in power, but that doesn't mean by simply giving someone else power to rule over you. We can simply agree to collectively fight anyone who tries to be in power, we can follow who we want in this fight, but no one should force us to follow them and anyone who tries should be collectively fought against as well.
- While I broadly agree with you, we don't have that third option yet, and electing the less bad option while we build the third option is a necessity.
  You don't get to say "Well I don't want any of this - I want better" while checking out of the systems we live within, ceding power to the fascists - you need to be doing everything you can to fight fascism first and foremost while fighting for better.
  It isn't easy, but who really thought a fundamental change in the structure and nature of our society would be?

Absolutely works for me that's a very anarchistic take.

You ever been in a room where one psychotic person seems to set the whole tone? That's the world without governments. Anarchy inevitably leads to misery, so let's come up with the best government we can.

I thought about this for some time. An anarchy would always collapse into governed state.
First, imagine the perfect scenario where there no authority and world is just a lot of tiny city-sized communities. It would take just a single bad actor to form a state, start invading neighboring communities and growing in power. In response - other communities would be forced to group into increasingly bigger states to have a chance to oppose influence from bigger/richer states.
This thought experiment also works if violent takeover is replaced by economic one. Think of cartels and monopolies.
- Until they hit another group that is either bigger or stronger and opposed to their way of doing shit. Really no different than how shit works now. Because you certainly wouldn't be free to murder and steal and rape and enslave or whatnot even in an anarchistic society; people who don't want you doing that shit would stop you or punish you.
- If you looked up on this subject first, you would know that humans where anarchist for 95% of our existence. There is a good youtube channel "What is politics?" that talks about this. Even today, there are anarchist communities and there where in the past in the modern world, some of them are still going on, some of them where destroyed by outside force, some of them dissolved into state power.
Citation needed. I think we'd be fine.
- No where on earth has anarchy, the places that have it for a few days spontaneously develop order through gangs, warlords, or the intervention of more stable societies
- You ever been to Somalia?
This in not true at all. In all anarchist communities, equality is strictly enforced and anyone who tries to get a hold on power is either kicked out or murdered.

Being president should be like jury duty. Everyone has to do it eventually. And it sucks just as much so everyone tries to weasel out of it.

I've done jury duty once, my group didn't even get called into the court room so the worst part was just listening to the conversations of 50 other people bitching about how they had better things to do, such children.
"I can't make it to D&D tonight."
"Why not? Are you afraid of the beholder fight?"
"No man, I gotta be the President."
"Aww man that sucks... Well, try not to nuke anybody, I guess."
It's legitimately a fucked up job for most people. You're on call 24/7, the stress is so bad you can literally watch presidents prematurely age, you have to smile at people who make you want to puke, and you are legitimately trapped in the security circle.
Yeah there's a lot of perks but I'll keep my application to myself.

I wish people would just agree to be nicer to each other ;-;

(I got yelled at by my boss the other day, can you tell?)

Your boss sounds like a turd! I don’t understand people who do that. I understand being frustrated, but yelling is a grade school response.
Bill and Ted. Joni Mitchell. They knew.
Where there is dominance over others, abuse is inevitable. In cooperatives, where works chose and can at any time dissolve positions of mangers, these things can do not happen. I work in a coop for more than 5 years, I never got someone not being nice to me, since we all have voting power and it wouldn't be smart to anger your co-workers.

-Peter Kropotkin

It is the people that take power. There where many anarchist communities all around the world, some of them still are. Even back before in stone age, before agriculture, most communities where without a leader and yet they strictly enforced rules. This is just propaganda, so people in power, can stay in power.
There is a good youtube channel called "What is politics?" that talks about these things.

In this thread: people that don't know how to be cool.

So "everybody has the nukes" and "nothing is against the law if you have a bigger gun"?

That'll be a real cool couple of minutes, bud, sure.

Ok. I’ll even share my snacks with you guys.

You bring chips, I bring soda
- I'll bring queso!

I'm conflicted. I'm worried about sociopath taking advantage of the lack of government, but on the other hand I'm not sure it's worse than the current solution where said sociopaths are the government.

In most systems where you can end up with no Prime Minister / President for a temporary period* the civil servants keep going. So it's not like there's no government.
Usually it's because political parties are having trouble forming coalitions or a run off condition in countries with a history of electoral uhh ... Shenanigans.
Don't worry, it is a lot harder for sociopath to have control over people in an already free society then in a society where you can use already existing structures of control to gain more control. Never forget, that in a system with no police, anyone can kill you if you try to hurt them. Where there is no state goverment, the people are government. And people make far more effective police to actually protect themselves then these selfish fucks.

Poland managed without an elected government for about a year. Heard it was nice.

Many societies did. In fact, for 200 000 years, that is all we were, no rulers no chiefs, all equal, direct democracy sharing societies. This system is imposed on us ever since agriculture where we can't easily escape our lands. However, when we organize together, in large enough numbers and introduce direct democracy and clear and concrete brave actions, we can take back control from people in power.
- Let me get this straight: you think that tribal humans had no rulers and no chiefs? Not only is that not true, it's like the opposite of true. There were a ton of leaders. If anything, we have fewer leaders now.
  Also, your idea of direct democracy is unworkable without leaders. Who is going to make boring daily decisions like running the Post Office or the US's official position on someone's fart in Brussels? Are you trusting the average citizen to vote on that?

At some point Belgium didnt even had a government so its completely possible

Some still don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities Even in past for 95% of human existence almost all tribes where anarchist, there is a good youtube channel “What is politics?” that talks about this.

So the purge?

Becuase only presidents are keeping us from all killing each other? You should read more about existing and past anarchist societies. There is always a lot (if any) violence in anarchist societies, because there are simply no incentives to do it in a place where there is no police to arrest anyone who wants to murder you if you even insult them. All violance and structures of power are very dangerous to anarchist societies so they are very strictly enforced,

There's a guy who was really into bread who wrote a whole book about this.

That's how you get a Chairman.

Once they get comfy, they're quite hard to get rid of.

No, it is not. Where do you get these ideas? It is harder to get control over people in an already free society then in a society where you can use already existing structures of control to gain even more control

That is how you end up with someone like Dwight Schrute as a boss.

How? What would make me, or anyone else, follow Dwight Schrutte, or anyone else, if no one is making me and more importantly, if I have a good collective support to stop anyone who is trying to dominate over me. The whole idea here is that we don't want a boss. If we can remove a boss in this society where we already have one, it would be even easier to remove a boss where we are already free and there is no one in power who can effectively stop us from just murdering Dwight.
- There is literally an episode where Jim says this same thing and they end up with a Dwight as the boss instead. It’s a reference to the show.

How do you get shit done without executive branch of the government?