I listened to Michael Malice (whom I love) and he went down the path of private militia and how citicens could organize themselves to defend their communities, he cited quite a few examples in Mexico, South Africa and other fail estates.

He then went on to describe how bigger militias will take over towns, creating snow-crash like societies until the biggest meaniest one will create a country to defend agains something similar from abroad.

A very logical conclusion (better explained by him than me sorry!) but that was a point in favor of anarchy, which I find odd because I interpret it as a point against it.

My personal take is that, anarchy assumes people WOULD move to better jurisdictions, but the bast mayority CAN/WON'T move. And the locals will not just let outsiders in. Which makes the whole thing non-viable.

But I pray to see the day where an anarchist society thrives and becomes better than current ones. We will see.

BTW this is a fucking smart question and I am no expert. Thanks for posting it.