Anarchy is the true means of liberty

I was only trying to see if she was truly representing this type of anarchism. Let me explain. In anarchy (the one she propose), the group as a whole should come to an agreement of what the state of anarchy is, because if it doesn't happen so, the person or group (not whole) to start the anarchy will dictate what the state of anarchy is, which wouldn't be anarchy. So can my opponent truly have answered any of those questions for the people as a whole? She can only answer those questions based on her own ideology, or if you accept that she went around and took account all other anarchists, debate with them, and come to such of an agreement as the answers, best possible scenario you have the idea of a group that can agree on, but you don't have the idea of everyone as a whole. So how can anyone state that "Anarchy is the true means of liberty". The only way one can say such, is if the state of anarchy had already been created and was successfully done so to the point to achieve the state of true liberty. So unless my opponent know of such time that the state of anarchy existed in such of way, and gave the answers based on such state of anarchy, I don't see how I can take her answers into account. ___ Why did I said that you cannot obtain freedom? Because freedom require no rules to be in place. We are very much different from one another, and because of those differences we cannot agree on everything, unless compromise. If you are compromising you are forcing yourself to submit by something you do not agreed upon. That is not freedom. So if we were alike, there would be no need for rules, because we would just naturally do things that we all agreed on. "Unfortunately" there is not so. Why did I write "unfortunately"? Because I feel differences is a positive thing, even though such also cause negatives. If we were all alike, we wouldn't be able to learn from one another. I'm keen to seek other ways of thinking, so this would really feel terrible to me if became true. A lot of things you wrote are concepts since they haven't ever being observed, and proven true. I like the concepts you presented however, and they could be right, but we cannot possibly know unless we put it into practice and see the end result. I also believe there is a reason why people commit what we call crimes, and do believe that we should be looking to what the reasons behind all is, and try to eliminate the reason and prevent crimes from being committed. However, I don't count on the completely elimination of so call crimes. So unless there is an anarchy state that was created and succeeded to the ways you propose (of which I have no idea of existence), I don't see how your resolution can possibly be proven true. The Government: Without a government, and with an anarchy state, the people as a whole must make decisions in a multitude of issues, of which the government is trusted to make. Imagine we all having to take our time to discuss all those issues and come in an agreement with. The bigger the population the the harder will be to conduct such of thing. New issues would be very much to come to be. We would be spending a lot of our time just discussing the issues we must solve, and how to go about them. The problems you stated, is not because of the government system, is because of the people who runs it, and yet you propose more people to run the system, meaning all of us. I think politics should be eliminated, and proper personal should be the ones trusted to run the government. Meaning, people who actually know what they are doing, and fit for the job, those jobs should require qualifications. Most politicians are all talks, and are good at convincing people. This makes me think. .. a group of people in the anarchist state, could very well convince people of their ideology, that could create a corruption on the system put in place. "Some people are sheep", that saying have some true in it. PRO wrote; "The thing that is neccesary for a state of Anarchy to achieve liberty is the abolition of government, capitalism and the unity of the people to coexist peacefully and equally". This was like the only question I truly wanted to be answered, so I thank you for this. The two first things could be achieved, the bold part would be very unlikely. Again, the bigger the population, the most unlikely it would be.