Doesn't mean they won't try. Last time someone tried, the civil war happened. Lack of success doesn't mean lack of associated problems or consequences. The real questions would be how far would they get and how bad would it get. Sure, there's a good chance they would never actually try, but the chances they will aren't zero.
"if you can believe it, at one point there were no search engines, and if you wanted to know what was out there you had to get a big book that listed all the websites."
My weak arguments aren't meant to convince you, they are meant to lead you along a train of thought. Here's the last piece...
Just because cancer cells are human doesn't mean they get species protection, that would be stupid.
Once we have acknowledged that our protective feelings for the bundle of cells that can't even think yet are species based, that we routinely kill creatures with brains more well developed than a newborn, and that we do routinely kill clumps of human tissue that put the host at risk, it's clear that the mother's well being should always take precedence over the well being of the fetus.
Frustration is usually the difference between what we expected or wanted and what we got. Patience is learning to let go of what we expected and accept what is.
If you can stop seeing this as something wasted and start seeing it as just a different circumstance, it may help you get past your emotions and start focusing on what to do next.
So let's say we do it. We transform our country and it becomes everything you hoped and then the neighboring country invades. How does the anarchist society stand against that? How do they have a militia that can operate beyond the immediate resources of each member (beyond begging door to door)? How do you maintain supply lines without people doing that full time? How do you buy supplies without taxes to pay for them? How do you administer supplies without someone doing that full time? How do we respond to rockets fired into our territory? Does Bob have an anti missile system in the barn?
It just seems like a nice idea but too fragile to succeed.
The way I see it, anarchism leaves nothing but openings. Your egalitarian paradise only needs one family to want to seize power gather weapons and find like minded people to form a feudal military organization and they can start picking off and dominating families one by one. Individuals would not be able to stand against this centralized power and the time it would take to meet, agree, and mobilize a militia wouldn't help.
It isn't that anarchism evolves into feudalism, it's that it takes centralized power to resist centralized power. And as soon as you start concentrating power, having a standing army with wages, or other centralized systems to pool community resources, that's government. Even, yes, a descentralized non-capitalist deregulated egalitarian democracy.
It doesn't bother me that people want this kind of system, it bothers me that people want to call this simplified form of community governance "anarchy" which is by definition "the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government" because as soon as you start imposing rules like "we can expell a murderer if everyone else votes to" it becomes a simple form of communal government and the definition no longer applies.
That's just renting when the landlord sells the house.