Why people would, relating to each other based on principles i've already explained. usually consensus is used, otherwise voting.
Of course not, the US isn't anarchy. That's what that dopey little girl is upset about.
right. but lets say the US is the freest society. the question for an anarchist then, is how to increase freedoms, and prevent tyrannies. you pick and choose your battles and then we have greater freedoms. The founding fathers increased the freedoms of the time and challenged systems of authority that they found oppressive or unjustified, and that has not led to tyranny. You seem to assume that increasing freedoms today, and challenging current systems of authority would. Do you now see the point? Its not a question of absolutes -- "we are in total anarchy / we are in total tyranny" -- its easy and almost useless to discuss based on those. But of incremental, marginal changes.
But then it's no longer anarchy, because rules have been established. Self-governing is still governing.
I'm all for increased freedoms within the context, protection and laws of the US Constitution. I don't think that that is anarchy, though.
I don't believe that anarchy is the opposite of tyranny. Anarchy is the law of the jungle and only exists until the biggest meanest ape beats his opponents, then you have tyranny.
Freedom is the opposite of tyranny. Freedoms codified and protected by the US Constitution sure seems like the best solution on this mortal plane. At least we can throw our government out regularly without civil war...