If I am not mistaken, the anarchist school of thought is okay with governance and even governments, but not with the concept of the state - an entity that exists to enforce governance with violence. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

I’m not 100% sure though.

edit - a (vs. the) school of thought is more accurate.

I think of anarchy as a theoretical end state, where power is perfectly distributed among each individual, but that this is less of an actually achievable condition and more of a direction to head in (and away from monarchy, where power is completely centralized).

That may be one of them, but there isn't a singular anarchist school of thought.

> there isn't a singular anarchist school of thought

Would be oxymoronic if there were one.

Isn’t that like saying there must be as many universes as theoretical physicists can think up? Slight maybe but it could also just be one.

> Isn’t that like saying there must be as many universes as theoretical physicists can think up?

Schools of thought are theories. It’s saying there can be as many theoretical universes as theoretical physicists can think up.

This is true for any social construct, of course. But anarchy’s nature means you get less alignment.

The ideal of self-governance as opposed to alienated state or institutional governance is quite common in anarchist thought. Some would probably consider it foundational for the tendency.

The thing that anarchists have a problem with is hierarchy, of which states are a manifestation. Most anarchists aren't just "okay" with some kind of government, but believe it to be necessary.

i guess I can see how it might work in a single person's life or small group, but on a large scale doomed to failure because the neighboring country/cit-state/etc will be organized, with and organized army. That group will eventually desire something the anarchist community has and will destroy it.

That is indeed the sticky question, but, again, anarchists aren't opposed to organizing either, even at scale - only that such organizing should be fundamentally egalitarian, not forced.

You can argue that hierarchical organization is fundamentally more efficient, but by the same logic authoritarian governments ought to always outcompete democracies militarily, yet it's clearly not as simple as that.

One could also argue that in a world where anarchist modes of organization are the norm, an attempt by some group to organize for the purpose of conquering neighbors would be treated as a fundamental threat by basically all other groups and treated as an imminent threat that warrants legitimate community self-defense. Of course, then the question is how you get to that state of affairs from the world of nation-states.

I don't have answers to these questions, but it should also be noted that it's not a binary. Look at Rojava for an example of a society that, while not anarchist, is much closer to that, yet has shown itself quite capable of organizing specifically for the purpose of war (they were largely responsible for crushing ISIS, and are still holding against Turkey).

An entity, that invents rules, that are not enforced by anybody is a useless waste of energy.

Nozick's libertarianism is not really an anarchist school of thought.