RE: Anarchy and Compassion
Whew! I think I'm going to have to get back on you on summarizing the Jeffersonian republic. I'll respond to your other points now.
I suppose I could be a minarchist, although I generally label myself as a classical liberal, using this graphic from Wikipedia:
My own political label is always shifting, and society's definitions of political ideologies are always shifting, so I tend to shy away from generalizations and just discuss single issues. (Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia is on my reading list.)
Environmentalism being compatible with libertarian ideals is something that I'm still wrestling with. Free Market Environmentalism, enviropreneurship, and PERC seem to be good bridges.
Overpopulation: The medium UN estimates for population growth say the world's population will probably stabilize around 9 billion:
This population is easily sustainable. I recommend Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist as a great argument against fear-mongering about overpopulation.
One of my central tenets is scaling down. Example: socialism works great (in fact, is ideal in my opinion) at the family level, but you can't scale it up. You could perhaps scale it up to a large family (i.e. grandparents, first cousins) but probably not to the city level.
At the heart of another of my personal tenets is the Aristotelian quote Moderation in all things including moderation. So, of course I would agree that some anarchy is good. In fact, we do have examples today (this website, I would argue). Here's a partial answer to your Jeffersonian republic question: if states had as much power as they were intended to have under Jefferson's model, we could have anarchic cities or counties within states.
Finally, as to your theme that people need constraints: Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind is on my reading list. I admit I'm not terribly familiar with his work, although he seems to be largely in line with Jordan Peterson, who I find to be fairly wise. Your comment about being "bound in" to society making you less likely to commit suicide reminds me of something I once read (that I now can't find the reference for). It was a study done on happiness, and the number one determinant? A sense of community. Of course, you can have communities within an anarchic state, I just thought that was an interesting addendum to your point.
Without invoking religion, people are extraordinarily undisciplined (I'm speaking from personal experience and from observing others). Very, very few people in this world have the discipline to clean their room. I don't have this discipline all the time. That is just one of many reasons anarchy is unfeasible.
P.S. Love that Friedman quote!
Thanks for the detailed reply.
On family socialism (though I prefer to call it communism) I agree, and came across this most obviously in David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years in which he argues that markets arose from slavery, cannot exist without the state, and our idea of barter is as mythological as the Garden of Eden. I can't say I agree with everything (though I'm not well educated in anthropology, economics and politics enough to refute it all myself) but I found it reasonable that the family is communistic and that it can and does scale up to the small community level. In fact gift giving, which is really just insuring you are in an unquantifiable debt to everyone around you, is the glue of communities in this style. So you jumped from family to city, and while I think it doesn't scale to a city, it does to a small community I think, if it is the style, and given that there is peace, freedom, etc.
Thanks for the input on overpopulation, but even so I can't dismiss the idea that without freedom of travel in the world the kind of "stablization" the UN projects will be extremely painful in some areas of the world. When in large groups we are fiercely territorial so I don't think this was ever easy but the systematic exploitation of certain areas coupled with restricting of peoples' ability to relocate out of exploitation has got to be one of the greatest sources of suffering it the world and as we approach resource limit it can only get worse. But I should do more reading on this.
I think Haidt's key point there is compatible with Peterson, that we are not all alike and we need the variation between people. That means that what one person, or one type of person thinks is best for everyone is not going to be that, libertarians included. They've both said that we need leftie and rightie type ideas, and the freedom for the contest of ideas to find something workable. Haidt has come out explicitly as a centrist, but I doubt Peterson would, just cuz.
One thing I have to disagree with you strongly on is that religion is required for discipline. I know you said you arrived at this from anecdotal evidence, but I don't think there's actual evidence to support that. Culture is apart from religion, and it's something we just cannot do without. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz put it as "Without men, no culture, certainly; but equally, and more significantly, without culture, no men." If we do not hold cleanliness in high regard, we will not clean our rooms. So while I think cultural ideas are associated with religion, they are not dependent on them, i.e. you don't need to believe in God to clean your room :D
Thanks, followed in case you decide to write about your Jeffersonian Utopia after you finish reading Nozick ;P