The benefit of Malice, and really any philosopher or historian, is that they're good for getting you to think about an idea, but they shouldn't be your gospel. I've read Malice's works and like watching his show, and while I recommend people at least read The Anarchist Handbook, I'd never claim him or anyone else have all the answers or even the best answers. People just need to stop worrying about having someone tell them what to think and take what others believe or say as simply one point of many that they can build on top of, regardless if that's by means of agreement or disagreement.
The other nice thing about Malice is he tends to be more pragmatic about his stance
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QUNzoNeqQN8
I'm probably closest to the libertarian or anarchist belief system politically, but I can't stand most of the people who represent it. Too many of them try to act agreeable and it just makes the whole thing come off as idiotic. That or they do the complete opposite and try to be as inflammatory as possible, which also comes off as retarded.
My issue with anarchists has always been their drug friendly ideas. Drugs do nothing but cause problems for you and everyone around you. It's not conducive to a productive and functioning society for everyone to be high and drunk all the time.