Anarcho-Bicyclist Conference Manchester April 2011

Got to go to bed. How have I not highlighted an insurmountable problem. This inevitable result would then mean that you no longer have anarchy, just a different set of powerful people/groups than the ones you started with.

I don't agree that it is necessarily inevitable, I could of course be wrong, but I think issues can be solved, systems have their challenges and most political systems resolve them by some means, western liberal democracies have numerous challenges from within and from without, they are resolved largely (but not exclusively) with (at root) coercion, force and war to some reasonable success, the idea that anarchism must be set up and left to run it's course without being kept on track might be at the root of the idea that certain outcomes are inevitable (I am guessing here, so correct me if I am what off what it is you are saying). Anarchism would face it's share of problems, as many as any other system and there would be a need to find solutions to keep the cogs turning.

When I said "I am not so sure you have highlighted an insurmountable problem" - I meant that I am not sure myself that this is a problem that cannot be resolved without leaving anarchism behind, the reason I asked you to walk me through an example of a power grab was to see if you really have hit upon a fundamental flaw, so far we have only made an assertion ('This inevitable result') - you might be right, but I would like to know if you are.

look at the history.

"This is the 21st century what do former XXXXX have to do with this"

: P

Humans developed from a state of anarchy and this is what has happened.

100% agree, I often point this out to people, all this, right here, the Queen, the taxis, internet, Nike, Michael Portillo, vaccines, all the result of anarchism.

If you now want to go back to a time where no one holds power

No real need (or ability) to go back in time - power is held by the people of a society.

If all you want is a change from the way things are now then fine, but it couldn't stay anarchic

(ignoring the traduction) You might be right, but I have not heard, as yet, an argument to establish that a free society would necessarily progress in any certain direction. I have heard it said, asserted as fact, and I suspect there is a good argument out the to support it but I have yet to hear it.

The alpha males, we are pack animals and the pack has a leader. Social leaders, the strongest and smartest, feudal leaders, kings etc

Again to repeat the question, in an anarchistic society, could you outline who these people might be, what power they would be trying to grab, how they would grab that power and so on?

Could you give me a simple example?

Erm, no there isn't. Name one that can keep peace amongst an entire society without authority

Sure, tell me what the nature of the problem is, furnish me with an unambiguous and clear example of the problem and I will, as best I can, take it from there.