By what means could a hypothetical anarchist country block the behaviour of multinational corporations?

As they would have no government, they would have to mutually agree to not cooperate with multinationals. I don't see how they could influence the behaviour of corporations outside their own country, unless there were other anarchist countries to help them. Surely the idea of an anarchist meta-syndicate legislating is a contradiction in terms? Forming a syndicate and legislating does not sound like anarchism, at least as I understand the concept.

Anarchists don't believe in any functioning government at all, and generally come in one of two types: spoiled suburban white kids who seem to think the whole world will just naturally follow the social norms of the wealthy suburb they grew up in, and pedophiles who use anarchism or libertarianism as a means of trying to legitimize their contempt for a government that severely punishes their desire to sexualize small children. 

There can be no such thing as an "anarchist country." Not even in the hypothetical.  As cells require functional (and functionally discernible) nuclei, so, too, countries must have some form of central (not to be confused with federal) government in order to be recognized or defined as a distinct national entity.  It's part of the definition.

In any case, true anarchism is like perfection: it's a goal which, while fully worthy of pursuit, one must recognize can never be achieved.  Human nature does not lend itself to true anarchy. As long as there will be human beings who need to be led, or who have the desire to ride roughshod over other people, there will always be a need for some form of government.

Corporations, of course, are government contrivances and cannot exist without the protection of government. For this more than any other reason they should never be confused with capitalism.

Thanks Nimitz, for touching on a few of the questions I was intending to ask.

Human nature is what I'm finding to be the biggest problem with the idea of anarchy - because of bullies, control freaks, mesmerising con-artists, political seducers, meglomaniacs and war.

I was at a picnic by a waterhole once, watching the water-dragons. They are lizards, here in Australia, who can grow to around 2 feet long and have spikes along their spines and around their necks. When we threw them bits of rockmelon, they rushed in for the food. The big ones bossed the little ones out of the way. So the big ones would grow bigger and reach breeding age, while the little ones didn't and fell by the wayside, to die of hunger, or grow more slowly or be eaten by birds.

They have no neocortex and no limbic brain. So all that bossiness, pecking-order and fighting came straight from their instincts at the top of the brain stem.

We humans, despite our amygdala, limbic and neocortex, have somehow not discovered how to successfully en-mass, moderate the influence of the top of the brainstem. The aberrations in behaviour are so consistent through pre-history, history and around the globe - that I think self-defence and a means of fairness and justice will always be necessary. And often it will need to be against a group with more numbers, power, strategy, transport, communications and technology.

Unless the entire world was anarchist and had some means of preventing bullies taking control, I can't see how an anarchist way of life (assuming small communities co-operating together) could survive.

I have lots of other questions, but I'd love to hear your views.

Some philosophies (and religions) are misused to justify "license" for harmful and criminal behaviors.

An example was the behaviour of the Sydney Push, most of whom were former students of the Chalice Professor of Philosophy at Sydney University, who taught what was then a new form of Libertarianism (which did accept democratic government.) They selectively took only one part of his teachings, that which advocated freedom, and they ignored the other part which he ardently stressed as the limiting factor - the necessary proviso of accepting absolute responsibility for one's actions, and never causing harm or limiting the equal freedom of others (unless they are causing harm.) He campaigned vigorously to get them to stop but failed. So then he rejected them, formed a new society and put more strenuous effort into teaching the provisos and boundaries.

I agree. Thank you for your response. :)

From my latest reading, at least one branch of anarchy sees social cooperation as possible through workers' syndicates. The workers own their own workplaces and all the capital equipment. They collectively run the whole operation, including the specialists in things like accounting and sales. If they can do this they can also organise their own schools - since anarchy holds that education is an essential good. If they can do that, they can also organise disaster relief, medicine and justice or ways of limiting harmful behaviours.

But they would have trouble with self-defence against a more powerful enemy, and big trouble against big business having the wealth to bulldoze through almost anything.

I'm trying to figure out - if a person is ardently or purely anarchist, how does he or she propose to meet these inevitable difficulties.

I'm hoping the anarchist here on aM will join in the discussion. Help me learn.

You are talking nonsense. An anarchy by definition does not legislate, and a corporation by definition is legislated into existence.

Having thought about this for a little while, I don't think there are any.

By having rallies, and.bake.sales. 

I did not use the word legislate. I said "block". One possibility would be mass-boycott -- all individuals choosing to not buy, engage with or work for corporations.
I am not advocating any particular action. Norproposingthat anarchy is a better or worse way of living. Merely speculating on what could be possible if enough people were anarchists. I am trying to imagine the consequences if such a society evolved. And inviting others to share in the speculation, A little lateral thinking would not go amiss in this context.Humoureven.

You're probably right. :)

LOL! Like! :)

LOL! :D