Anarchy doesn't exist, it's the equivalent of a Simpsons parody
When I was young and dumber, I thought anarchy was something cool, cool and dangerous. Something involving people walking around with mohawks, maybe killing others for fun or sport.
I figured it would involve lots of temporary warlords, maybe guys like this would be king for a day before being violently killed by someone, again, for fun or sport:
In reality, statism and anarchy tend to not be very different at all; they converge on similar outcomes. It's kind of like an episode of the Simpsons where they say there's three different ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the "Max Powers" way - wrong but faster.
The reality of anarachy vs statism is, the first sign that you have a free market is when monopolies and cartels form to take control over everything. It's a classic 80/20 rule or "Pareto principle" example at play. Your alternative is to have a government take control and form monopolies over everything while promising they won't rip off and kill everyone like back in Russia.
You really end up with similar outcomes of most people not belonging to the political class or monopoly class being exploited by the concentrations of power and wealth formed in either system. The big difference is, as Ronald Reagan says, the closest thing to immortality is a government program. The only problem with that is, the systems formed under anarchy tend to resemble immortality as well, since they form their own governance, security, and military networks designed to preserve their power. As you can see, you're mostly taking two different roads to the same destination.
"When I was younger and dumber, I thought anarchy was something cool, cool and dangerous. Something involving people walking around with mohawks, maybe killing others for fun or sport."
You do realize that is only one very limited, immature perspective of what anarchy is, right? There are whole branches of anarchism (mind you anarchism is completely different from anarchy) that believe very different things from each other. What you described as the replacement for statism is basically just the communist vanguard party, which I agree is very akin to statism with its centralized authority that needs to coerce people into staying under its jusrisdiction. However there are a great many people who adhere to the non-aggression principle which has nothing to do with creating a unified power structure to enforce the "anarchist establishment". The whole point is to work mutually and voluntarily, like any free system should.
Edit: When did I become an AnCap?
Well, if you read the whole thing, I said anarchism + statism are both different roads that lead to the same destination, so I obviously believe attempting to create a bunch of meaningless sub-categories of anarchy like genres of music is a pointless exercise. It would be a case of the Ted Kaczynski idea of liberal oversocialization, or talking just for the sake of talking without getting to the point or the real essence of what's going on.
I did read the whole thing. What I was trying to express was more that what you're talking about (a central authority that calls itself anarchist but actually holds the power) still isn't anarchism. That's Marxism/communism using the name because they like pretending they aren't just vying for the power of authority (even though the whole point of a vanguard party is to seize all power and authority with the promise to give it up). As someone else had expressed in a post last night or this morning (I don't remember when exactly) I feel true anarchism doesn't even concern itself with authority, it's simply people voluntarily working with other people to make their lives better.
Again, I'm saying you're pulling a liberal oversocialization strategy of trying to say, "no, it's not rock music, it's hard rock music!". None of those labels matter. The same thing happens in the end game no matter what. You're talking about the micro view. I'm talking about the macro view. If you look at my post history, you can see I have an interest in commodity trading. If I buy something on leverage, I don't really care what happens to it 5 seconds later, or wish to give it some type of label. All I care about is what the state of the thing is when I close my position. For me in the macro view, I'm getting shoveled a serving of the same thing no matter what choice.
But the whole world doesn't work that way. It's not a binary black:white, left:right, black:blue, right:wrong, good:evil. People have different means of getting to an end. It would be unfair of me to say all statists were fascist dictators, why is it any more fair to assume all anarchists are the same? If you asked me to put on "rock music" expecting to hear AC/DC or Aerosmith and I put on The Chariot or Drottnar, you'd probably be surprised or taken back, and quite possibly angry or upset.
I get that you're only worried about the end game, I'm trying to say you're putting a blanket label on a group of people with a very broad gradation of ideas and beliefs in the ultimate goal.
What Road Warrior portrayed as Anarchy is the hijacked version of the word that is synonymous with chaos. That is not Anarchy. At the core of Anarchy is the Non-Aggression Principle. You do not use force or violence except in self defense. That is the opposite of what Road Warrior had.
In reality YES, Road Warrior IS similar to Statism. You just are picking which gang has the "authority" to boss you around.
You could argue we already have anarchy and the 500 people in the house and senate are just an armed gang temporarily holding people hostage. Like I said, it's all the same difference.
That isn't anarchy. Anarchy is voluntary. No gangs, no violence except in self defense.
In reality to be true anarchy there cannot be a person, or group that is said to have authority or rights over another. Though it does support voluntary contract agreement between people.
In fact you can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm another, infringe on their rights, or property.
So it doesn't FIT with Road Warrior. You are confusing the term CHAOS with ANARCHY. They are not the same thing though that is how they try to teach it to people.
I posted this sometime last week... truly pretty awesome speech by Larken Rose. It'd clarify a lot I think.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@dwinblood/anarchy-awesome-speech-by-larken-rose-response-to-the-noam-chomsky-video-posted-a-bit-ago