I wouldn’t want anyone to seize the food in your fridge. Unless with “seize” you mean “fill up unprompted” because people know you need to eat and that’s enough reason to give you food, and maybe you’re busy all the time with constructing bridges or whatnot so they also cook for you.

And while corruption is an issue, it’s not the only issue: The very act of having lots of capital to throw around allows companies to direct policy, you e.g. don’t need to grease hands to get different municipalities to overbid each other with tax breaks for your new fidget spinner factory. The BS is inherent in the system.

As to scaling: Possibly. Possibly not. I’d argue that it can’t yet be envisioned, not even by anarchists themselves (and we’re aware of that, hence all the gradualism)… but as you acknowledged that it can work in the small, what happens if all the municipalities we have turn into hippie communes? Would they elect, among themselves, an Emperor Commune to rule over them? I don’t think so. They’d find ways to cooperate at eye level. How that will look in detail, as said, I have no idea, it’s probably going to involve federation and plenty of subsidiarity.

Practically, right now, it makes no difference as most of us are not living in hippie commune towns. First step would be to get there, then we can think about luxury gay space anarchism.

I skimmed it. It’s bullshit. Reminds me of the “not technically a lie but essentially a lie” bullshit that the door-to-door “have you heard the Good News” religious bastards would try to sucker you in with when I was a kid in the South. A lot of “like us” type bullshit.

If you’re stupid enough, you might think it makes sense. But it’s a fairytale.

I’m not saying the author is stupid. I’m saying he’s maliciously pandering to stupid people.

Let’s take a super quick example.

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police? If you answered “yes”

I’ll try to get past my gag reflex at how condescending this is. But sure. Start with an eminently, universally reasonable position.

The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization

Still sounds fairly reasonable, but the intelligent among you might be thinking “hmm, sounds pretty reductive”

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?

Now we’ve gone fully into “only really dumb people aren’t skeptical at this point” territory. I mean, first of all, in the interest of saving your mental health, it’s a decent idea to ignore any statement that starts with “but if you think about it”. However even going past that, you get to the premise: “I’m a good person, therefore everyone is a good person!” Which is…like…seven-year-old logic.

Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice

This is the part where we go off the deep end. The author hopes you’re either not paying attention or are really stupid at this point.

Reddit, famous for not having ads.