We really need @anon73430903 or @Wanderfound on here to discuss the theory, but in their absence I’ll try.
In my callow youth, I read Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, and I thought it was the best thing ever. Then I read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and I thought it was even better. Then I discovered anarcho-capitalism, and hoo boy, that was really the stuff. No coercion, everyone free to make such contracts as they saw fit, peace and prosperity for all, any losers cared for by the winners out of the goodness of their hearts.
But it didn’t take long before I realised that such a society would be fundamentally unstable. If you have private ownership of capital, capital will concentrate. And as ownership of capital grants power, especially in the absence of counterbalancing centres of power like a government, you’ll either get one dominant concentration, and hence a de facto state, or multiple competing concentrations, and hence warlordism.
The only way an anarchistic society could survive is through communism, or something close to it. Far from the anarchist left having an idealist view of human nature, they know what humans are capable of, and thus why it is not a good idea to trust in the beneficence of the wealthy and powerful: safer not to have any wealthy or powerful in the first place.
