Because any fool understands that rome wasn't built in a day. America wasn't built in a day...you talk about anarchy as though its impossible but when you really think about it. Its not like there is some greater than human force controlling us and keeping us all in line. In that sense alone we already have an anarchy based society as every single person is already working in line. If you actually did watch the video, which I have my doubts you really did. Then you would know that Anarchy does not mean No cooperation or organization. Or that everyone has to be self sufficient.  That coming from the false assumption that any form of government is necessary for organization to occur. Either it be a republic, a democracy, a kingdom, or a dictatorship. The ruling class issues orders called laws and punishes anyone who disobeys them. That already is not cooperation, that is domination. Its one group forcing its will on another. Authoritarianism can be used to force people into organized patterns but that does not mean people can not follow those same patterns without being forced to do it. The most useful and best examples of organization that we see today are all actually anarchist in nature.  No one was forced to build the grocery store you go to, nobody was forced to sell anything in it; everyone involved in the vastly complex system of growing your food, getting it to the store and selling it to you, everyone involved is already doing so voluntarily in exchange for money. You and all the other store's customers choose freely where to go, and what to spend your money on. This purely voluntary arrangement allows for an amazingly complex degree of Organization and Cooperation without anyone being coerced to participate. In contrast, under government a very small group of people come up with an idea and forces everyone to participate in it as well as funding for it with tax dollars. In an Authoritarianism based situation, the ruling class would tell you what to produce and how much, what prices to charge and tell customers what they must buy and what they must pay. Anyone who did not comply with the centralized grand master plan would be punished in some way. That is how a government does things. Which one would you prefer? Another common but incorrect assumption that you have been making this whole time is that people would have no way of defending themselves against common criminals or foreign invaders. The government's version of ‘protection’ is inherently hypocritical. Governments will use their hired law enforcers to find and lock up some of the private criminals and prevent them from preying on people. But every ruling class gets its money for such operations by way of taxation. Demanding money from its subjects and then punishing people who don’t pay up. Oddly enough, every ruling class insists that it needs to be able to forcibly control and extort money from people in this way in order to protect them from private criminals who might try to forcibly control and extort them...See what im saying? In contrast, If there is no government people do not lose their inherent right to defend themselves against violence or defend what they have from people who would take it. Every single person has this right and they also have the right to cooperate and organize with each other to exercise that right. Organizing for mutual defence does not require any government granted laws or authority, nobody wants to be attacked or defrauded and everyone wants to feel safe. Whether each person takes this on him/herself individually or whether they hire and organize others to do it in on their behalf it can easily be done on a voluntary basis. (Don’t confuse voluntary with a lack of payment. Voluntary in this sense means to simply not be forced.) You continue to insist that if there were no government that smaller private gangs...or even bigger ones much like the mafia would rise up to enslave and rob people. Organized crime gangs exist alongside governments man and it's clear to me you and a lot of people don’t understand the dynamics between them and how Government not only enriches but empowers organized crime while appearing to fight it. Black Markets in rich organized crime and money allows them to buy government protection. There is no reason to think they would do as well in an environment of freedom where they would have fewer ways to make money and where they would be up against individuals and organized armed citizens. A criminal gang that is recognized as such would have far less power than a gang whose aggression is perceived to be legitimate and proper and that's the gang we call Government. When thuggery is called Law enforcement and thievery is called Taxation and self defence from these is called criminal and terrorism then even the wide spread of fire arms couldn’t do much to stop the aggression. You can imagine a private gang going around doing the same thing the government does with out the aura of authority. And imagine how a well armed population would respond to this. (As most Americans do carry a firearm...even I have one) The gang would fail quickly and dramatically.

Another point you made is that some people are just truly insane, destructive and just sociopathic. Your concern is that these people would be free to do anything they want and nobody would stop them. And this concern is again based off a misunderstanding of human nature. Where ever we have a government ruling class, we still have free lance thieves and thugs who are not deterred by the laws of politicians. In some instances they are stopped by force by the police or they decide not to commit a crime out of fear of what the police might do to them. What makes this deterrent work is not a fancy piece of paper that says he isn’t allowed to, or some official badge the cop is wearing but the simple threat of harm to the sociopath. It would really make no difference is that same threat came from the police, another citizen, or even another criminal. A sociopath doesn’t care about laws or social rules, he cares about avoiding pain and hardships for himself. This is still true when a government ruling class is not involved at all. If the intended target of an attempted carjacking pulls out a gun, it won’t make any difference to the carjacker if that person had a badge or whether or not there is a law about taking people’s cars. Discouraging people from hurting others does not require special authority, only the ability to use defensive force. Ironically, though people hope the government will protect them; having a government...a gang who is believed to have the right to tax and control people just creates a gang so big and powerful that normal people can’t resist it. (A perfect example would be all the riots and protests you see all over America being taken down by riot police) In short, to create a huge gang and then give it societal permission to control and extort people with the hope that this gang will prevent theft and violence is simply a self contradictory idea. but that's literally what government always is. You might assume that if people organized for mutual protection in defence then that would just be another form of government but there is an essential difference. People coming together to do something that everyone has the right to do such as defend yourself, does not require any special authority. It's not government so long as one group of people take claim a right that others do not have the right to do. (Such as taxing or controlling innocent people) Organized defence can be very effective without supposing the special right to rule over others or in other words without being government. In contrast, Governments rob the people of far more wealth than private crooks could ever manage. Making the idea of a protector governement ridiculous.

Another point you could make is that if there weren’t any lawmakers telling us all how to behave we would all be acting like reckless and savage animals. That claim though implies one of two things, either we normal people just have no moral compass and can’t differentiate between right and wrong unless or until politicians tell us or that the only reason we want to cooperate and coexist peacefully is because politicians told us to. A quick examination of your own motivations will instantly prove that neither of those are true at all. It's particularly odd to make this argument in a society where politicians are voted into power, if the people themselves have no moral code and no conscious and are just stupid violent animals then why does almost everyone want the government to keep the peace and protect the innocent? Would a population of vicious, evil, and heartless people try to elect good people to keep the evil people in line? Obviously not. The goodness, order, and desire for peace comes from us. Not from the lawmakers we vote into office. The same holds true for everything the government does, if people are so short sighted and selfish that they can’t be trusted to organize and raise money for whatever they deem important then how can those same people be trusted to decide who should be in power? The pure implication states that an average individual can’t be trusted to run his/her own life but can be trusted to choose someone to run other people’s lives. Government is truly not a civilizing influence its actually a rather uncivilizing influence. People who would never personally rob their neighbors constantly use the government to do it for them by way of taxation. People who would never dream of controlling minute (not sixty seconds definition) details of their neighbors lives think it's just fine to vote for politicians who will do it instead. Government gives everybody the opportunity and encouragement to rob and control other people without risk. So Government, instead of acting as a check for the imperfections of our nature; drastically amplifies our greed, irresponsibility,  and malice towards other human beings by giving us a legally acceptable and risk free way to interfere with the lives and choices of our fellow men and woman. Government brings out the criminal and busy body in everyone. In contrast, in the absence of a ruling class people would lose their ability to ask lawmakers to interfere with other people’s lives and we would not have lawmakers and enforcers who could avoid responsibility for evil deeds by simply saying “Just following orders” Throughout history far more theft, assault, oppression and even murder has been committed by those acting on a supposed authority than by anybody else. Even basically good people who believe in government will condone things or do things that they know would be wrong if they did them on their own. Most people know that theft and assault are bad but they imagine that controlling their neighbors and forcing them to spend their money on things that they don’t want or even ask for is perfectly moral and legitimate when its done by way of the political process. Wrong becomes right when it's called taxation, legislation, regulation, and war. Anarchist know better, they know that human society will never be perfect but it would be a whole lot better if evil deeds were committed only by genuinely nasty and sociopathic people. Rather than being committed wholesale by basically good people who believe that violent aggression is ok when it's called law enforcement.

The fundamental principle of voluntarism is very simple it's wrong to initiate violence against any other person regardless of badges, laws, or alleged authority. The only time the use of force is justified is to defend against aggression and almost everyone understands this on a personal level. But they have been taught that this basic rule of social living does not apply in the game of politics and government. Most people already know how to get along with others and most people want a peaceful and just society as our mortality does not come from politicians making laws our ability to organize and cooperate. Doesn’t come from the ruling class; when you and everyone else decide to escape the belief in government you won’t suddenly turn into violent animals as you so strongly seem to believe. Our inherent right to defend ourselves and our ability to defend ourselves is not served by government. In fact it's threatened by government more than anything else. Ruling classes do not produce peaceful coexistence but rather perpetual conflicts and violence. Our belief in government authority takes our compassion, virtue, and good intentions and turns them into power for people who crave power and riches. Of course the people who benefit most from the political racket will put a good spin on the system and do their best to convince you it's a social necessity (and it seems to have worked). But ask yourself this have the thousands of laws, taxes, and regulations imposed on you by politicians made you a better person? Have they made you more productive and more caring? Is the world better off with the politicians taking your money and telling you how to live your life? Or do you think it might have been better off if you had the ability to spend your own money and make your own decisions. Is the world really better off with a small group of people enforcing a master plan on everyone else? Can the orders and threats of a ruling class make the world what it should be? Or would society be better of with human freedoms and respect for individual rights? By voluntary cooperation and peaceful organization? If that second option sounds better to you, then it's time you actually start to learn more about Anarchism cause I really haven’t even scratched the surface on the topic.

Some people dismiss anarchism as a utopian idea that would only work if everyone was generous and compassionate. Obviously everyone is not generous and compassionate all the time. But those people need to look at the other side of the coin, if people are too stupid, malicious and greedy to be free aren’t they too stupid, malicious and greedy to be trusted with power over others? And in that point alone, the whole concept of your government falls apart again. whether or not people are good, bad, or some of each giving one person power over another is not going to make that person better infact power has been historically proven to corrupt people and make them even worse. Whereas the discipline of equal freedom of everyone else has been proven to bring out the best in people. You like most people believe that we ‘need’ some form of government because you and all those other people misunderstand that obedience to authority makes us all more moral, civilized and peaceful. In reality it has always only ever done exactly the opposite. If there were no governments anywhere, there would be no wars, the worst thing we would have to deal with is local and petty crimes and mishaps. Every little populated nook and cranny could easily be self sufficient through the use of solar energy and use of farms and water filters. Everyone knows that governments can be corrupt, abusive, inefficient, counterproductive, and even downright tyrannical. And you just like everyone else believes the only way to fix that is to get the right people in power and yet people have spent centuries if not a millennia using different kinds of ruling classes, different legal structures, different ways of choosing the rulers and so on. But yet every single governmental structure has resulted in freedoms and riches for some and oppression, violence and poverty for others. What if, instead of deciding what the throne should look like and who should sit on it. All people of good will simply embraced the non aggression principle, what if instead of looking to some ruling class to impose our values on society we embrace the concept of self ownership. These principles are simple and easy to the point of being self evident. But they are diametrically opposed to the authoritarianism that most of us have been indoctrinated with. Anarchy does not mean chaos and violence or every man for himself. Having no government does not mean having no morality, no organization, and no cooperation. Simply put, Anarchy does mean that no one is your master and no one is your slave and that's all it means.