I am on the fence regarding the 'human nature' argument. From my personal experience, when interacting in smaller groups, people are basically good. It's only when the groups get larger that things go wrong. Also it's not as though this isn't the kind of thing that anarchist thinkers have heard and 'refuted' before.[1] I'm not sure I buy the argument, but that's one reason that 'ideals' are called such, eh?

> The irony of anarchism is that in almost all dimensions you are more free under a centralized government.

While I agree with your comment in spirit, there's a lot of real-world problems with this. Ask anyone with a minority sexuality if they feel protected by the law. And it's not just 'gay marriage' that I'm talking about, there's communities that are even further marginalized, like the polyamory community. Their lifestyle is explicitly illegal... Basically, all I'm saying is that this idea of equal protection under the law is the exact same as equal protection under anarchism: only an ideal.

> Like communism is the insane end of the scale for the latter, anarchism is the for former.

I've really come to dislike dualisms in politics, because the abstraction is always leaky. Anarchism is still a collectivist political philosophy, though it does focus a lot on the individual...

1: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215