How will those groups of people rule over the individualists who wish not to be ruled? You do not explain the mechanism.
Discussion
For Anarchy replacing the State successfully it's the other way around:
- how will the anarchists force the people who want to be ruled to accept their responsibility?
That's what nobody explain:
How do you manage hierarchical groups of people inside an anarchist state, without ruling over them?
You're using weird words but you manage them foremost with enforcement of property rights. Property rights include the right to exclude people from your property and exclude them from your voluntary associations so long as the others in your association all consent to that governance. This may be done via a contract and delegating a little responsibility (via a valid, consensual contract) to exclude people who would be dangerous to the community. To enforce property rights you also have the ability to use force against aggressors onto your property, such as surrounding governments. Everyone has an incentive to keep governments out, so they likely pool resources together into defense firms to give overwhelming force against such aggression if it tries to seize control of the land or impose its supposed edicts on anarchist land. These defense firms will operate on a market for insurance that responds to real time signals, both price signals and other threat detection systems, to keep everyone safe from attacks.
Ok I thought you were genuinely asking but I see what you're doing. Anarchy doesn't use force except in as much as it defends property rights. The people who choose to live in governments will not aggress against our property the vast majority of the time, and as long as they don't, there's no force maintaining the system whatsoever. It's just peaceful trade and building things. The surrounding governments, if they be reasonably peaceful, will find it more beneficial to trade with us than to force us to live like them.
Mate, I'm not talking about 'communities', I'm talking about States.
But you keep changing the discourse back to communities, agin and again.
If you think a State could function as a community you are absolutely clueless.
What the hell are you talking about? A state is a centralized entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/ultimate decision making in conflicts, over a given geographical region. I interpreted your question to be about replacing the state full of people under it with a decentralized collection of people living in anarchy over a large geographical region, forming some sort of defense that you claim can't exist. A community, with a mechanism for defense. I proceeded to explain the most basic form of that defense. This method of defense is the replacement for the state. You literally posed the question of how anarchy REPLACES the state. Not becomes the state. Anarchy is just a peaceful interaction and organization of a community of people, by definition.
If you're trying to attain victory by definition, you're not very good at it. This is second rate sophistry at best.
At first I thought you didn't understand me or I didn't explain myself properly, so I tried to center the debate.
I'm sure now that you don't want to understand anything. You just have a well learnt discourse that you repeat again and again, even when the conversation is not about it.
You're so tiresome.
If the conversation wasn't about what I was talking about, that's because you were not clear. At all. And you fucking know it. Waste of my time. Goodbye.