Definition from Wiki:
Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.
What have I stated that contradicts this definition?
"just replace government". You make it sound so easy. It would be a staggering achievement if anarchists of whatever 'flavor' were able to achieve this alone in our lifetimes. I have said elsewhere it wouldn't create a utopia, just an improvement.
Private companies are not at all the same as government. When did Apple put you in a cage because you refused to buy an iPhone?
On consent: you never had permission to take that shovel remember. Some things are "basically the same". Petty disputes can escalate into something more serious as, of course, can more serious disputes. The question is whose judgement are you going to rely on to resolve these disputes and then how will you enforce that judgement once you've relied upon it. For me the anarchist position is to posit as much judgement and power to enforce in the individual as possible. What's the alternative? Hand judgement over to the State.
Whilst as individuals I believe we should be as fully armed as we personally judge to be necessary according to our particular circumstances for our defense, far more important is the judgement that we use in the exercise of the increased personal power. Is the 'shovel dispute' likely to have arisen if you knew I had an arsenal at my disposal as well as being a generally 'nice guy' to deal with? Or do you think we should just leave such questions to our 'betters' in the State apparatus?
A security company I can choose, a State I cannot.
The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
Choice is inherent to freedom. Freedom is an inherent component of anarchy.
Yes, the same 'shovel [etc.] disputes are still happening' and probably always will (perhaps you have a solution (I suggest in another thread)?). I haven't ditched the shovel conversation at all. The scenario could take endless different forms but my approach would be either to deal with it myself if I am able, otherwise hire a professional (chosen by me on the basis of that professional or organization to resolve disputes with the least friction possible). That is not "'condoning the use of' apv". 'Killing a cop ... sitting in his car' because you think 'he started it' is. Incidentally, in the case of the shovel, you started it.
It's not about 'telekinetically acquire[ing] a shovel'. It's about how you apply your judgement to a particular circumstance. I'm only against violence when it's exercised aggressively (as opposed to defensively) and as a consequence of poor judgement.
We're generally opposed to moral prescriptions dictating how people should act. But I believe there are some valid one's regarding how we shouldn't act (e.g. stealing, aggressing). When the policemen sitting in his car is actively engaged in such activities (and he may well be at some point) then I (generally) don't physically resist. Not because I believe he has any moral authority or because I 'support' him in any way, but simply because he's in possession of overwhelming physical force. I suggest it's that we need to change and the only way is for a greater percentage of people generally to understand the fundamental difference between State imposed 'services' and ones we are free to choose ourselves (which may mean dealing with it ourselves). Understanding that anarchism means exercising better discretion and judgement than anything the State hired enforcers can offer is an important part of that process imo.
@Sky: if you believe my position above is 'pro-state and pro-police' I have to say I disagree and I believe most 'Statists' would as well. I have said elsewhere my perspective is 'no tax' not 'less tax' - big difference (hope I don't have to keep repeating this).
I hope you feel I have engaged with DD on the points he's raised and in relation to the original question. I have addressed the questions as honestly as I am capable and whilst there is clearly a difference of opinion I don't agree that there is no engagement and that it is 'pointless'. It's highlighting significant differences on a topic that is consistently raised in many discussions that I've ever had with the wider public and their perceptions of what 'anarchy' is.