@dantheman Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I did not get around to comment on your previous article. I agree completely with your assumption that nonviolent governance works many times better than the force-monopolies we have now. Force has no logical end before death, so any governance based on violence is a death threat. This is anything but a naturally balance association of parties. When you call it non-violent, i would actually just call it free competition on services presently called government. Competitive governance will undoubtedly fast diverge towards non-violence, since it is a preferable attribute to a service provider.

State controlled education is collectivist indoctrination. This has always had only one purpose. Create obedience that can be exploited by psychopaths and useful idiots. You cannot exploit a person that is a 100% individualistic (which is another description of "anarchist") and therefore fogging peoples judgment and getting them to give up their personal sovereignty is possible only if they can be indoctrinated to see themselves as a part of a collective. Free associations based on contracts are not collectives, collectivism is a mental illusion, based on false mental aggregations of separate but identical concepts.

If it is unacceptable for an anarchist, that a person is shunned from life preserving services because of his or hers actions against the free associations that are available, they are not anarchists. Anarchists want 100% individualism and therefore logically must accept other individuals self inflicted actions even if it means they will die. Those genes are not worthy of reproduction anyway. The social forces of free choice to not engage in free association with other people is as basic for real anarchists as actual active free association. Ostracism is the tool too keep people from diverting the consequences of their actions onto somebody else.
An important difference between competitive governance and forced governance is that competitive will stop giving you services, if you do not comply with the contract. Forced governance will force you to "receive" their services and force you to pay for them, regardless of your individual need. Non compliance means death by government. Non compliance in free society means self imposed "social" suicide. The difference is personal individual choice.

the non-aggression principle means "no initiation of force". This is the anarchist principle that is the minimum for deciding if an action (based on free choices) is moral or immoral. But in the case that someone aggress against you, you are no longer bounded by this principle, since the aggressor has escalated the "conflict" beyond the scope of the principle. So you are free to choose your retaliation against the aggressor to ensure your return to non aggression scenario again. The retaliation does not have to be equal in "force" as the aggressor, it is completely up to you to decide the scope of it. Otherwise it would still be the aggressor that dictated and controlled the situation and therefore a bigger incentive to figure out a way to use aggression. The fog of war retaliation force, would inhibit aggression.

(btw i consider myself an anarchist)