Bullying is a part of British culture, the “yes m’lord” attitude is still strong within them, don’t cause a fuss, “keep calm and carry on” is their motto for a reason…

https://theweek.com/101863/why-england-s-schools-are-among-worst-in-world-for-bullying

https://www.agencycentral.co.uk/articles/does-the-uk-have-a-workplace-bullying-problem/

As someone who has spent half their life in the UK and the other half in the USA, specifically the English are particularly nasty and have a strange admiration for the “clever bully”, both in school and at work. That isn’t to say the USA doesn’t have bullies, they’re just not as universally admired.

You could win this argument if only you could link a reference to your sources. It’s not up to us to look up evidence for your claims, it’s up to you to provide evidence for your argument.

Using your example, if say a village or town wants to build a well to supply water to their inhabitants, they’ll have to jump through hoops and abide by rules of the state and pitch to them the viability and cost of building the well, permits, etc. etc. Anarchism is when the town builds the well anyway and dares the state to stop them.

Worth noting I’m a communist, not an anarchist, so I’m not the best representative of “anarchy”.

We live in a perpetual state of anarchy. Nobody is beholden to the law or state, they’re just imaginary rules that we all adhere to like kids in a playground. Everyone does what they do based on the everyday needs of life, we put food on the table simply because we need to put food on the table, we keep the lights on because we want them on. Even within so-called “states” are a messy web of allegiances and alliances, where nobody knows what anyone’s doing and are also doing what they do based on their everyday needs. Realizing that everyone is an individual with their own needs, that cooperative projects are agreed upon works by the needs of the many, and that the “state” has nothing to do with that process, is proof that we live in a perpetual state of anarchy, society can be whatever WE want it to be, and the notion of a “state” in opposition to “anarchy” is just copium.

Why is violence the only other option? Your words, not mine. We could picket and protest outside their homes and gated communities, we could strike, we could organize a boycott. Or is the reason you suggest violence, because deep down, you realize that’s what it might take?

I got my account a while ago but only started using it recently, and this happened to be the first thing I’ve felt strongly enough to comment about. What are you insinuating? What’s so curious about it?

My point is that I do vote, I have campaigned, I have canvassed, I have phone banked, I have fundraised. Did it for Obama when I was 18, and the so-called “change” never came. I did it for Bernie, even phone banked from overseas, and we all know what happened there. I even tried tackling corporate irresponsibility head on by working for Greenpeace, fundraised and raised awareness, attended protests, helped people send letters to their reps, the whole nine yards. Took all this for me to realize the problems go beyond the purely symbolic particapatory act of “voting”, a piece of paper in a ballot box is simply not enough. Our democracy is going to have to be fought for, that’s what i’m insinuating, if that’s sates any of your curiosity.

What can be done about it? Clearly voting doesn’t work, it got us here in the first place.