If you're an anarcho-capitalist, that's cool and interesting, but I think it's quite distinct from the more left-wing forms of anarchism people usually talk about (that revolve around self-organizing democratic cooperatives).

I actually like a lot of things about Freidman's work, but I don't think it would actually function. The issue is that at the end of the day it's still just armed gangs living in tension with each other. Peace is retained as long as it's more profitable than war, but that's no longer the case when one gang is stronger than the others. In our world, I think you'd pretty much immediately see Amazon Security Forces start annexing all their smaller neighbors, thus making ASF stronger so they can annex more and more. This scales up until there are just a few large organizations (ASF, Google Army, Exxon Defense Group, etc) who are equally enough balanced - or until there is only one. These large organizations have contiguous territories, borders, and monopolies on violence.

Anarchist just can't last. It's like try to make a sculpture of water. Even if you could shape it, it'll immediately move towards the lowest-energy state. Without something to stop them, the strong will immediately begin seizing power from the weak and ultimately culimnate straight back to governmental entities with monopolies on violence. Which is how we live now.

You make an interesting point, I don't think we'll ever find out without trying!

I think a central corruptible government is key to have massive corporations, I would expect the market not to be as centralised if starting a company were easier and if we didn't have regulations.

In case I'm wrong and we end up with a few massive competing law enforcement agencies, I still think it would be an improvement over the current system: law enforcement agencies would have an incentive at doing their job (unlike today, when more crime = people are less opposed to increase taxes and funding the police), competition would drive the cost of law enforcement down for consumers.

The government, in the end, is just an armed gang as well with a monopoly on violence.

>law enforcement agencies would have an incentive at doing their job (unlike today, when more crime = people are less opposed to increase taxes and funding the police), competition would drive the cost of law enforcement down for consumers.

No, they have an incentive to consolidate control over territory and eliminate competition. Those that 'do their job' will be outcompeted by those who simply conquer. There is no need to 'do your job' to get profits when you can just take physical power over the customer and take their money, take their house, enslave them as workers or sex slaves, etc.

The point is that these law agencies you're talking about quickly just become de facto governments (armed gangs with monopolies on violence). It would happen basically instantly.

Then we're back where we started, but without any of the gains we made since 1792.

Anarcho-capitalism is easier to justify because it doesn't have to answer the question of "what about poverty, exploitation, and abuse?" with anything stronger than "too bad for you". It's a lot harder to explain how you're going to eliminate material and social hierarchies without some form of legal hierarchy, which is why left anarchism tends to exist more as an organizing principle and a tendency within the broader (socialist) left than as an independent political movement.

what are self-organizing democratic cooperatives?

how do they relate to anarchism?

and wouldn't a globaly organized democratic cooperative essentially eliminate anarchism?