One of the fundamental ideas behind anarchy is that legitimate authority only comes from the community that authority affects.
So, say you live in an anarchist commune, but do not believe in anarchy yourself. You're still invited to the meetings where policy is decided, and while you're not forced to, there's a lot of peer pressure to attend. You're still subject to the group's decisions.
Say you completely disagree with this and want to go do something else. The commune tries to get you to attend a meeting about how to respect your wishes to be excluded, possibly sends a delegate if you refuse to participate in even that. They do their best to accommodate whatever it is you're trying to do, within reason (and anarchists are usually very accommodating). People who are extremely stubborn and to the point of being borderline hypothetical are a problem for the anarchist system, but in the end the solution is chosen by a bunch of humans thinking about the situation, and it's not like any other system has a better source of reasoning than humans.
This is starting to sound less like good-faith questions than it did when it started. Are you trying to poke holes, or are you trying to understand how this is something someone could actually believe would work? Are you asking yourself how your questions are resolved in existing power structures?
I never realised, but I think my trying to understand something works by trying to poke holes.
I generally found the idea of self governance very appealing, and didnt think much about it, since I thought people have figured out some good ideas how to make it work. When I was getting older, I got more doubts. My biggest doubt/worry currently is that these kind of ideas can actually prepare the grounds for (local) genocide. I am trying to figure out if these worries are justified and this concept has to be rejected for the good of minorities, or if the concepts are advanced enough and take human nature into account.
I do not know if this constitutes bad faith questioning.
Consider direct democracy. If the populous directly proposes and votes for explicit genocide.. how is that a failure of the system? That's democracy in action. To believe in Democracy fundamentally is to believe that The Will Of The People should be done, whether it be noble or heinous. You have to trust the people to make their own decisions and to learn from their mistakes after they have borne the consequences of their actions.
If you concentrate power then only a few get to decide on the matter of genocide. Don't you want a direct say against genocide?
Currently the people bear no responsibility for the actions of their government. They can always say "I just voted for him I didn't know he was going to do that." They are never culpable, never responsible. How can society learn under such conditions?
It's easy for many to ask "What if someone does bad?" under a proposed alternate political system while over looking that representative Democracy is just rebranded tyranny.
Instead of one king we have thousands. Kings of law, kings of the court, kings of action. The people who decide the system have no checks on their power. Once elected we have no hold on them, we can only say "Well we won't elect you again." But only after unjust law had been created. How can any person claim to speak for another? Don't you deserve a direct hand in shaping the rules and priorities of the society you live in? Why should you surrender that power to some random person? How much would you pay someone to undertake a complex and critical task for you without a contract? Would you pay them all of your share of power that is rightfully yours to shape the order of the world you live in-- receiving no guarantees in turn?
So, say you live in an anarchist commune, but do not believe in anarchy yourself. You're still invited to the meetings where policy is decided, and while you're not forced to, there's a lot of peer pressure to attend. You're still subject to the group's decisions.
Say you completely disagree with this and want to go do something else. The commune tries to get you to attend a meeting about how to respect your wishes to be excluded, possibly sends a delegate if you refuse to participate in even that. They do their best to accommodate whatever it is you're trying to do, within reason (and anarchists are usually very accommodating). People who are extremely stubborn and to the point of being borderline hypothetical are a problem for the anarchist system, but in the end the solution is chosen by a bunch of humans thinking about the situation, and it's not like any other system has a better source of reasoning than humans.