The video is a little interesting, but rather disjointed. The guy doesn't seem to actually understand how emergence works. He throws in random "science" and "history" to attack government and organized religion (at least, I think that's what he was trying to do). In the first two minutes, based on the title and his introduction, it seems like he's going to try to assert that because emergence works in science and nature, it should work in communities. But then around three and a half minutes, his argument starts breaking down and making little sense.
The truth is that anarchy can actually work. But it only works in small groups and for a very short period of time. And while emergence and anarchy are related, they are also very disconnected, like trying to compare algebra to quantum physics.

Er, the same was said about democracy.

Which, unless I'm mistaken, still hasn't existed in a pure form on a larger scale than ancient Athens, which was a single city with a relatively small population.

not that they actually had it in it's "pure" form.

FINE democratic-republics.

Of course, how exactly does one define a working government? How long does it have to work?

Just wondering, isn't there no TRUE anarchy?
Because even in small groups, eventually people step up and take a leader-like roll, which defies anarchy.

I think that was Ph1n's point. Anarchy only exists until someone takes control, which usually happens fairly quickly.

Well it depends, if someone takes control and insists all disputes be decided by himself despite the wishes of the conflicting parties then yes you don't have anarchy. If everyone freely acknowledges someone as being wise or just and accepts his judgement on disputes then you have a private arbitrator. With a state being defined at minimum as a person or body of persons who have a monopoly of arbitration and taxation, that is they decide any disputes and how much they get paid for their service. And employ force to prevent any competition.

I'm sorry, but all the minarchists and anarchists I've talked with have been unable to defend their points and obnoxious. If you are not one of this, please tell me, and I will be glad to engage in peaceful non-snarky debate.

Im an anarchist, but in public I argue for minarchy, no need to scare people. I also use the term voluntaryist.

Not quite. Volountary agreements (e.g. You take charge for now) are not just permitted, but encouraged under anarchy. The problem comes when someone tries to take charge by force. Committed anarchists will just laugh in their faces, but the pre-conditioned sheeple that the current system breeds will usually say "yes sir!" and feel that all is now right with the world.

Sigh.