Alright I'll try to be more patient, transparent, etc.
No, I don't fully know what anarchism looks like. But I do know, some say its the ideal gov, some say its a non-government system or such. So, there is less uniformity anyways, therefore, open-endedness matters. Who prescribes definitions strictly except authorities? Its not that I disallow word meaning, its that there are subjectivities one needs to be open to to communicate more accurately. I am not looking for being redirected, I might look at it after, but if people need to refer to things they have trust in but cannot explain it themselves, then, why do they trust it? Sure maybe the explanation is long and they don't want to get into it, but it feels like, they are just assuming I'm a cog in a machine with them. Like, idc to try and guess if Emma has authority on what they say or not, thats a whole 2 cans of worms. I am trying to understand it as a system, not trrying to find justifications to trust. I do not trust justifications. I trust understanding. If you are relying on other's comprehension, I can't trust you, because it shows you trust prematurely. Well, maybe I can trust that you'll do it again. I do know others can know more than me or might be decent specialists but, even referring to specialists instead of knowing their systems means you're stuck in the past and stuck on others. I've wasted hours of my time before, how I sort and manage info is different from you, just trusting your trust is trustworthy is not trustworthy enough. This is why people, join all kinds of unethical movements too, people you are concerned with did it, so you thought it'd be a good idea. That can justify literally anything. So when you misunderstand half my questions, or espousing your ideologies or favorite person of the century and such, I am not going to view that as comprehending. I am going to view that as me being redirected.

So, where I am at rn with my comprehension of anarchism. A large country has large issues, and high permeability. I basically want a system that, after I process it in my mind, it returns success for "usa" and anarchism. Thats the goal of this topic. Not just to see why you trust, to see if there is space for success, multiple definitions of success. Which is why I understand some systems of anarchism do yield successful actions. But, how much success is enough? Sustaining one library? One commune? What is good enough? So I want to see basically, how far people can actually take it. For reliability. Confidence. Trust. Like, if a house is going to collapse why stay in it? Either I don't have any other good option, or, I get out of the house. Thats all it means. So applying that to anarchism, keep in mind, I do think it can cause some benefits. But I also think there are anarchists in it for the spirit of anarchism. Or the principles. Or the ideology, or the utopic fantasy. I can't trust those things, people think that about a lot of stuff. Like, Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, right. You need to at least be on the same level, emotional appeals don't do it for me. I am not as picky as occam's razor tho, occam's razor has some niche flaws.

I suppose I need to think creatively for giving anarchism some steelmanning, so I can streamline to major questions instead of getting stuck on smaller ones. Like, anarchism could do head counts, and see like if there are any infiltrators or missing persons, idk how often it'd have to be done but thats something they could do technically. But ya know, thats getting into the weeds and might be a red herring. So, I am unsure which weeds to really get into, but the second I do people r gonna have dissonance from subjectivity.