Anarchy offers nothing. And that's the point.

The problem people have with anarchy, is that it is the anti-thesis to what they are used to, that is, when people think of solutions to large scale problems, things that are actually happening and things that could happen, they look for a SYSTEM to fix it rather than individuals, including themselves. Individuals have flaws, everyone has that “heart of darkness” that is constantly illuminated in many of the stories and art we indulge in. Our scary, selfish egos are lurking in the background waiting to kill and exploit for our own benefit. And because of that, people feel they need some type of deity outside of the individual to fix it. So they put their faith into a system of governance, rather than themselves and their personal communities.

Well I don't see anything religious about this, do you?

The SYSTEM will fix things. That's the mindset of statists. Anarchy completely lacks a deity (government). So it doesn't really matter to a statist whether or not you can show them how well a certain thing could function in an anarchist society, the fact that it is anarchist doesn't satisfy their need for the comfort a system (a powerful deity) brings them. Gods make guarantees, anarchy does not. Anarchy won't help you if you're hungry, anarchy won't make sure everyone is equal, anarchy won't keep your lights on and your water running. Anarchy offers you nothing. Anarchy can only show you that it's the individual and the communities made up of individuals that provides and protects you.

I'm sure you've done a pretty damn good job explaining how X will work, and more efficiently, in an anarchist society versus one with a government only to be met with something like, “I don't know, I still think it would be nice to have a government around…” Why can't they see the light? Because it requires a completely different mindset. They want a god and so they are arguing for a god, where as you are arguing for the individual, who, naturally, pales in comparison. You might as well be trying to explain to them how Jon Jones can beat up Superman (He can't. It's fucking Superman).

It's one thing to be good at Muay Thai. It's another to be good at it with four knee caps.

Not to mention that a state practically IS a godlike thing if you blatantly cheat by attributing all the things it's done to itself and not the individuals who do it under it's guise. So before you can even get anywhere you have to explain how their deity isn't even real, it's made up of individuals, all having those same, scary flaws (people in government more so than anyone else). And that rather than looking to some type of system to fix things, since they aren't real, you have to look to the individual, and how well the individual understands things such as science, psychology, etc. And so at that point it becomes an argument about what's best for the individual. Which should obviously be autonomy (what makes someone an individual). Also, what should the individual be like? Well, moral and intelligent for one thing. Would moral individuals govern others? If you stripped away the the idea that people in government are acting upon some magical authority called "law" and instead acting of their own will, would you call them moral? I don't think so.

When we argue for anarchy, we don't expect it to fix things as if it's a new deity to sit atop the throne. It's the job of men/women to fix things. This is absolutely critical to the anarchist argument. Only after this can we start to establish the details.

Anarchy is not the solution. The real solutions come from only one source, strong, intelligent, moral individuals. Are you one of those?