GM. Any group of more than one person can not have anarchy. It only exists if you live alone in solitude. It's not a good thing.
Discussion
Good morning ✌️🧡
100x yes.
Unless you're determined to physically fight over everything, you're going to have to make rules to govern peoples' behavior. Then have those rules will always get exploited. Then physically fight to reset the rules. And repeat.
There is no freedom without order. Anarchy is no freedom at all. It's just survival. That's something we progressed from long ago. To go back would be regression.
Maybe we have a different understanding of anarchy.
For me anarchy means NO RULER over me. You can have RULES though which you agree upon, or if not then yoy are free to leave the space and find another with a set of rules you can agree with. That is anarchy and a free society.
Who enforces the rules you agree upon?
The respective parties. If you don't want to be in that agreement anymore, you move out of it. You enforce it by adhering to it. Just like bitcoin.
You consent to the rules upfront (unlike being born to a state that then keeps adding amd changing rules without your explicit OK)
If someone breaks the rules it can also be dealt with, eg. with arbitrage.
I'd recommend to read Paul Rosenberg's "Justice Without Force". I can share the doc with you if you have trouble finding it.
Anarchy always exists amongst those who make and enforce the rules. Internationally there is anarchy between countries. We need to expand that anarchy to the plebs, not just for the elites.