The smallest unit of warlord is the individual 😉

minarchy gang joins the chat

By that logic, the current anarchy at the nation state level should inevitably get to a single world government

It's the way, thats how Fiat is now!

I don't disagree on there always being one or more leaders. But the state is not "an agreement on how to do things" otherwise a family or companies would fall into that category. Any community with shared standards, really. The state is an apparatus of coercion. I agree that framing anarchy as the absence of rulers/leaders may be misguided, it's much better to think of it as a system of cooperation based on voluntary association. With that framework, most of our relationships are anarchic because we enter them and remain in them willingly. Our relationship to the state however is coercive, and thus not anarchic.

So much yes! The first question any designer of a political ideology should ask themselves is what happens when someone doesn't follow your rules. Any form of organization at all will immediately over-power the individual. Anarchy is unstable. Likewise anyone who make preparations for their own family will be more successful than those that rely on central planning. Communism requires that you continually imprison or kill anyone who tries to get ahead.

Just to complete the thought neither do I think of anarchy as absence of power over others, as influence is a form of soft power based on voluntaryism that will always exist. I've thought a lot about this and the only useful distinction (more so than freedom/power) is voluntaryism/coercion.

The problem is that you only get to make a voluntary association once. After the initial agreement it becomes an apparatus of coercion. That is the whole point. You join because you want to coerce other people to not take your stuff. But that also means you can't take other people's stuff. If you decide to dissociate so you can, no one will honor that new choice. You will be coerced to follow the rules where you live.

Agree. All that needs to happen beyond the remarkable template of the US Constitution is the separation of the Economy and State.

You don't understand. Anarchy basically just means the biggest warlord is a chill guy instead of a control freak who won't let other people avenge their own loved ones

Michael Malice often talks about this point and says how the best criticism that comes against Anarchy is that we just end up with the state. This chapter linked below in For a new Liberty addresses this topic and concerns. I have included the final two paragraphs which focus on the percieved legitimacy of government and how even in anarchy was to fail we would simply end up with the status quo. https://mises.org/online-book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/chapter-12-public-sector-iii-police-law-and-courts/outlaw-protectors "One of the crucial factors that permits governments to do the monstrous things they habitually do is the sense of legitimacy on the part of the stupefied public. The average citizen may not like — may even strongly object to — the policies and exactions of his government. But he has been imbued with the idea — carefully indoctrinated by centuries of governmental propaganda — that the government is his legitimate sovereign, and that it would be wicked or mad to refuse to obey its dictates. It is this sense of legitimacy that the State’s intellectuals have fostered over the ages, aided and abetted by all the trappings of legitimacy: flags, rituals, ceremonies, awards, constitutions, etc. A bandit gang — even if all the police forces conspired together into one vast gang — could never command such legitimacy. The public would consider them purely bandits; their extortions and tributes would never be considered legitimate though onerous “taxes,” to be paid automatically. The public would quickly resist these illegitimate demands and the bandits would be resisted and overthrown. Once the public had tasted the joys, prosperity, freedom, and efficiency of a libertarian, State-less society, it would be almost impossible for a State to fasten itself upon them once again. Once freedom has been fully enjoyed, it is no easy task to force people to give it up. But suppose — just suppose — that despite all these handicaps and obstacles, despite the love for their new-found freedom, despite the inherent checks and balances of the free market, suppose anyway that the State manages to reestablish itself. What then? Well, then, all that would have happened is that we would have a State once again. We would be no worse off than we are now, with our current State. And, as one libertarian philosopher has put it, “at least the world will have had a glorious holiday.” Karl Marx’s ringing promise applies far more to a libertarian society than to communism: In trying freedom, in abolishing the State, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

Well, except that anarchy would kill a lot of people. Not everyone can do the warlord thing.

The argument is that not everyone would have to. Security would be provided as a service.

What if you can't afford the service?

I will quote from the same book. Chapter 12 is on police law and courts. If you are interested it lays out a compelling argument however how it plays out in practice could be very different. I would recommend the book if you want a deeper understanding of the anarchist arguments and reasoning. I find most common questions have been given an answer however you may find them insufficient or unconvincing. ""But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now?” There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn’t protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly. Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special “police aid” societies that would do work similar to “legal aid” societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities.) There are important supplementary considerations. As we have seen, police service is not “free”; it is paid for by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is very often the poor person himself. He may very well be paying more in taxes for police now than he would in fees to private, and far more efficient, police companies. Furthermore, the police companies would be tapping a mass market; with the economies of such a large-scale market, police protection would undoubtedly be much cheaper. No police company would wish to price itself out of a large chunk of its market, and the cost of protection would be no more prohibitively expensive than, say, the cost of insurance today. (In fact, it would tend to be much cheaper than current insurance, because the insurance industry today is heavily regulated by government to keep out low-cost competition.)"

What if you can't afford the service now? Free lunch?

Nostr is Anarchist, without a centralized Authority. Anarchy only works in small localized homogeneous regions, Anarchy unfortunately does not scale but it's intended for small cooperative communities where trust, and regulation is left between third parties to hear out disputes. One could say it's a proto-state, and that may be a fair assessment to state so but a private market focused system at large will do what is the best to maintain social cohesion whereas the current state system does not need to worry about such since it still collects taxes by force.

Panarchism is the way.