Again, you need councils and stuff, but those can be done without hierarchy. Sure, someone temporarily presides over functions, but that position can rotate and not give anyone real power. That's all been considered and there are solutions. It's nothing complicated.

My experience has been exactly the opposite. You just want to say "it can work" and then ignore anything else. You completely ignored my points about popular tyrants, that was a pretty significant and topical concern to disregard.

Popular tyrants can happen anywhere. It isn't an argument against anything other than humanity. I'd argue that anarchism makes it harder for them to establish power, not easier. Trump can just walk in and take power, because we already set it up for him, for example.

And even what you do address, is obtusely vague.

No shit it's obtuse and vague. I'm not writing a constitution here. What do you expect. Hell, even constitutions are obtuse and vague. That's why the Supreme Court ended up with the power to interpret laws, and why they sometimes disagree. You can never address everything, even when you're trying to, which I'm not.

You're arguing with me and asking for ridiculous degrees of information, yet you aren't trying to figure anything out for yourself. There are dozens of competing anarchist views, each with different solutions to different problems. You aren't so smart you thought of issues 200+ years of incredible thinkers haven't considered.