No worries on timing :) Conversations does not have to be realtime here on Steemit :)

What I noticed on Steemit is a great number of Anarchist and Libertarians pushing the message, get rid of the state, get rid of the king, get rid of any institutions and make agreement together. Slave this, Fascist that and so on. Strong, strong words! And when I ask how to evolve from what we have now into what is kicked at and preached (100% liberty, 100% voluntary, 100% free market) and I ask some basic things that will happen for 100% sure (for example some murdering someone else) I get no answer other than, no centralized institutions, no police. I also get the answer: it'll solve itself. Well, I dont think so! :) Last two days I'm in contact with someone who calls himself cooperative agorist and he seems to be a bridge builder and I'm trying to digest what he was informing me about. I generally dont like strong words, preaching while not being practical. Fact for me is that when people around you can be convinced to live the anarchist way, this probably takes a couple of generation, or maybe never will, therefore I suggested to seek those communities who have like minded; That is just my practical way of thinking. Another practical way of thinking is: when we have a lot of 'solo' islands, this has less power to evolve then when those 'solo' islands form their community, in geo location I mean, since no matter what, until we have virtual reality developed that can give us the exact same experience as our real lives, our lives are local in geo terms and not remote as can be lived through digital channels like Steemit. I simple have difficutlies with those who say "well, we just have to see how things will be", since when we for instance decide to remove the state tomorrow, lets assume we can get enough traction to achieve that, what will happen then? 99,9999% for sure we end up in total chaos and from that chaos some other leader steps up, and not because that leader can force this, the mass makes this happen, they will follow that person or group because of their good marketing, or for whatever reason.

EDIT: I have read the whole article you send, and I must say, I kind of follow how it is presented, but it is all so theoretical. Fact is that people will abuse the freedom. My question generally is: Who determines if someone is an abuser, What counter actions are allowed to be taken towards the abuser, Who and How are these actions defined, Who executes the actions. As long as this is the individual, I foresee tremendous problems arising. When it is some group in the community, how is that different from what is called the state? In the link you provided, I have again issues with the strong words like 'steeling' and 'theft' and the example given comparing the state with a restaurant is a one-sided view, it is not 360 degrees view. As we now can see on Steemit, more users, more abusers, and even those who like to do good, are starting to play similar games as the abusers. 'Bad' spreads so much easier than 'Good'. History shows this over and over again.

EDIT: not sure if I mention this to you, but you know how individuals are, when for instance going with a group of friends to a bar and it is common that each member of the group gets a round of drinks, it are always the same who gets them without any questions and concerns, and it are always the same who try to skip a round. I've seen friendships coming to an end because of that. Multiple times, in different groups. And I've heard this from others as well, their experiences with their groups. Those who do not contribute in this 100% voluntary actions, are in my honest opinion the abusers. And to me, on something as simple as this, this will for 100% sure happen in a local community based on 100% freedom and 100% voluntarism. All facilities required for a local community to prosper, and I mean the common infrastructure, eg roads from one property to the other, schools, hospital and all you can think of that is not possible to create by yourself, and not with just one or two or 10 neighbours, requires many people to voluntarily contribute to get it materialised. When always the same people doing this and the same people not contributing, what do you think will happen? The community will fall apart. Those who do not contribute: will their children not be allowed to get an education? Will ill children not get medical treatment? That is inhuman IMHO, children are not responsible for their parents actions. So how will this work in practise? Also here it is too easy to say "well, we dont know, we never tried it, lets see what happens, it'll sort itself out", since I have big doubts it'll sort out by itself, at least that is how I look at things based on everything we've already experienced in history. I would love to debate this topic further, how solutions could look like, and it are these topics that need practical solutions thought of before even a local state is transformed into an anarchist community in order to prevent all sort of conflicts. Contracts is one, following contracts is two. Same for norms, yes, likely quite a few people will follow the norms, but for sure quite a few people will not follow the norms. The later will cause the frictions and these will not go away by itself.