Maybe a bit of hyperbole.
Like Rothbard said: The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.
That response makes no sense.
Yet, you just said that it would be “up to the community to decide”. THAT’S GOVERNMENT.
No, that’s cooperation.
And soup: which response?
No, that’s government.
I think laws should be abolished, do whatever to whoever, if you can’t defend yourself you’re as good as dead.
perfect anarchy
When you and your family or friendsdecide to build a swimming pool/buy a car/ go on vacation, is that government? No. It is a group of people cooperating, voluntarily.
More like Nihilism. Anyway fellas, I have to go work now. Enjoy yourselves.
So, what is “government” to you, then?
ITT: people who never bothered to look into the idea of anarchy/read books on it or evenconsider it arguing with people who spend most of their time studying and debating politics.
Our system now is a clusterfuck. The best possible solution is reverting to our natural cultural state. All other systems are doomed to run themselves to failure. Its as simple as that.
Why is that the best possible solution?
And what is that, nietzschesaurus? Revert to hunter-gatherer?
EDIT: Also, I found it funny that Diabeetus quoted Rothbard from the Austrian School of Economics which is tantamount to discussing biology with someone from the Discovery Institute.
Well being as most of our closest primate cousins living in their natural states adopt a form of single dominant figure that sees over groups, are you suggesting we adopt a sort of iron fisted large pack leader? Like the baboons? 
Wouldn’t that just be a dictatorship all over again
Actually, Nietzschesaurus makes some very valid points. The idea of anarchy is shrouded by how us as a species have been taught what to believe. Earlier in this thread it was suggested that education would be the key but I disagree. It can be argued that throughout human history, our voracious appetite to learn more directly attributed to our appetite to want more. An example could be made by looking at the wars fought from 1AD to 1900 and the reasons, and then see how many have been waged in the past 110 years and even to this day, and why they started. Don’t get me wrong, some of the innovations that have actually helped manknind came from this appetite to know more. The con side is that how much pain and anguish have been caused by this same thing. Should we revert to being cavemen? No, I rather enjoy my high speed internet. If the true nature of anarchy were to have any way of succeeding, we as a species would have to mature to the point where we are able to temper this thirst with the wisdom of knowing whether we are ready to know or discard it because it is the right thing to do.
why do people always assume anarchism is directly opposed to any form of government
Many people are only familiar with ‘individualist anarchism’.
This sort of governing self while rejecting any outside governing IS opposed to any form of government.
The word is broken down as follows: “archy” is a type of ruling force. If you have a single ruler, it is a “monarchy”. If it’s ruled by men, it’s a “patriarchy”. If it’s ruled by a small number of people, it’s an “oligarchy”. If it’s not ruled, then it’s an “anarchy”.
CONGRATURATIONS YOU ARE WINRAR $$$$$$$