I look forward to reading this. From the title, it sounds like you’ve pinpointed my primary objection to the philosophy. It’s an attractive philosophy and in many ways “right”, but to retrofit an existing society with an anarchic system would run into issues of human greed/entrenched power where people would too easily take advantage of the system at the expense of others. But to implement anarchy while keeping the “bad” people in check would likely involve some form of violence/restraint, and violate the principle of pacifism that anarchy requires in order to work.

Curious to see what you wrote, and if it aligns with this. Be back once I read it (this afternoon, gotta run for a bit)

Whatever we think in the abstract practical reality punches us in the face. I agree.

The Sovereign Individual's "Return to violence" concept comes to mind.

That's why I like reading articles and books with arguments built on lots of real cases or very realistic scenarios. Helps me connect ideas to my reality

The one key thing anarchy misses is that you can never be completely free. If you don't recognize and confess that God is your master, then you are still under the deception of the evil one.

Rothbard does a masterful job, in For a New Liberty, The Ethics of Liberty, and Man Economy and State, to explain everything.

All the objections I ever find, try to jump straight over his most sound deductive arguments (as they cannot clearly be dismissed) to sufficiently say "yeah but then a meaner guy will take what's yours".

If you really want to see how your "big bad meanie" scenario could play out ("could", but free market is much smarter than all of us), read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux.