Nikola, I appreciate your fully fleshed out response here. And I am glad you found my feed so that we can exchange ideas.
Let me address your comment about our nature first. I think that hierarchies and rules may be staple of human society to some degree, but just because a hierarchy exists does not mean it should be compulsive or based on aggressive violence. For instance, Toastmasters, garden clubs, Kiwanis, and other organizations have hierarchies, but these groups are based on voluntary cooperation and not force.
Therefore, why is it that when government's crop up the people within it have authority to compel others to live or die at their command? This is something I believe we can consciously change by acknowledging that other organizations exist that don't employ compulsion. I believe adhering to spontaneous order can achieve these results.
As for your point about rules existing: I agree. Social rules always come into existence, as do rules regarding property ownership. However, "rules" are different from "laws." A rule can exist within many contexts as mentioned, but usually people get a choice to create contracts to live by those rules. In the current society, "laws" are imposed by force and people cannot chose to live by them. Some people claim we have a "social contract" that justifies this, but a "social contract" is not a contract at all. It is a political edict that commands people to obey a territorial government. And again, that is something I believe we can consciously alter or choose to ignore.
Lastly, I am a compassionate anarchist—so I believe that we can change society not by trying to convince everyone of the philosophical weight of each argument, but by attempting to live as emotionally intelligent and as empathetic as possible. But we can discuss this more at a later date.
It is a well thought out argument. People should want to belong to the groups that they are a part of...otherwise, they should not be coerced into their rules. No one should have to follow a law that denies them the opportunity to live their life as they see fit. But what about murder? Rape? Assault? Theft? Industrial pollution? Corporate fraud? These are things that affect not just the party committing the deed, but create a victim as well. Now, I am not one of those people that advocates for 100% security--that is a scare tactic. I would still argue that people need a basic codex in order to understand civilization and the trade-offs inherent to it. That's why we got Hammurabi's code. That's why we got increasingly institutionalized religion, to a certain extent.
I like your ideas, but I wouldn't subscribe to them under the banner of anarchy. Peace, love, tolerance, freedom from government oppression...I can dig it. Completely wiping out the public sector is irresponsible, at best, in my eyes. Again, just my opinion...but I certainly think these are the types of conversations that will move the world forward into a better age, whatever it may look like. I certainly don't profess to know everything...or even much of anything...but it is fun to conjecture.