Anarchism is unfeasible

DEFINITIONS1. An anarchist societyI'm not sure if "society" is the right word, but according to Con's definition, a population living according to anarchist principles would have no form of government whatsoever.2. Government and stateCon defined anarchism as "the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished". Therefore, we need to agree on what government is and isn't before we can understand anarchism.Outside this definition of anarchism, Con did not define or refer to government. Instead, he spoke of "states": Institutions able to control monopolies within a defined geographical boundary and collect taxes. So, for example, a private company that owns a motorway and collects tolls would be a "state" according to Con's definition. But a nomadic community with a ruling chaste, strict laws and no geographical boundaries would not be a state.Respectfully, I think Con's definition of state is misleading. Even standard definitions of "state" are tied up with the idea of territory and national identity. These are concepts that are not central to the definition of anarchism, which is a rejection of all forms of government.I'm wary of trying to pin down a definition of government too precisely at this point, because I want to leave Con scope to discuss anarchism properly, which may mean using his own definition of government, which I'm interested to see. However, surely it must include the idea of a governing body with authority to act and make decisions on behalf of the population. This authority could be granted through some democratic process, inherited, seized by force or in any other way assigned.ARGUMENTSAnarchism is unfeasibleSome form of government is an inevitable consequence of large group decision-making. Consider the following process.1. The community has meetings where decisions are made. The meetings are open to everyone, but voluntary (no coercion). Not everyone comes. Those people who do come make decisions for the community as a whole.2. Certain individuals are granted authority to implement the decisions. Smaller committees also might be formed with authority to manage defined activities (childcare, for example, or building a bridge).3. When those authorized groups or individuals go to implement the decisions they are met with resistance. Maybe it's from people who weren't at the meeting, or maybe from people were there but didn't speak up or have since changed their minds. 4. Those authorized delegates can either overcome the resistance (coercion!), or they can allow the resistance to prevent the activity. The principles of anarchism make it clear they must take the latter course.5. The result of yielding to all resistance will be widespread, overwhelming inefficiency. The larger the group, the more inevitable the disagreements and variety of opinions. Group decisions and policies would regularly have to be delayed and abandoned as they meet resistance in implementation.6. For society to operate even at a very basic level requires certain rules and procedures to be set up and observed. "Coercion" might be social pressure or encouragement. It might be a system or rewards and punishments. It might be physical coercion. This all implies the existance of some form of government.REBUTTALCon gave four examples in support of anarchism, two historical and two theoretical. I will discuss them in turn.medieval icelandAccording to Con's source (1), medieval Icelandic society had a parliament, judges and several levels of law courts which had the power to outlaw people, meaning they could not be given shelter and could be killed with impunity. The government did not have a defined executive branch, perhaps, but it was still a government.the early kibbutz movement Kibbutzim, then and now, have operated according to strict rules. Notoriously (or famously, depending on your point of view) babies were separated from their mothers and raised separately. Parents were only allowed to see their babies and children for a few hours each day. Whether or not you agree with this policy, it was something that was imposed on new mothers by the group. It was a form of government. One mother remembers that “as soon as I had my first child, I realized it was a terrible mistake. I cried for about a year and a half." (2) The other thing about kibbutzim is that they had control over who came in. They could reject people, and people who disagreed with the kibbutz government decisions could leave. For any political system to be feasible, in a general sense, it must provide solutions for the population as it is. It can't rely on selecting an elite of like-minded people. Kibbutzim have also been embedded in and supported by the nation of Israel and very active in its creation and expansion so it’s an extraordinary choice, really, for an example of anarchism. private contracts such as dominance assurance contractsAccording to Con's source (3), dominance assurance contracts operate by an entrepreneur paying workers just for turning up in addition to giving them shares in any output. I would really appreciate it if Con could spell out for me how this is an argument for anarchism. Yes, paying people is a good way of persuading them to do something. Does this have anything to do with group decision-making and coercion?Con said, "small scale communities delegating responsibility to federated respresentation also provides a plausible alternative to States""Delegating responsibility to federated representation" sounds exactly like government to me. How is it not? Seriously.(1) http://www.daviddfriedman.com...(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk...(3) mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf