So wordy. Anyway discuss!

For the sake of argument realize that anarchy is often misunderstood. At it's root it means "without rulers". So I'm not advocating any kind of lawlessness. More of an enforced equal footing under the law with zero exceptions. Situationally there may be special limited-time limited-scope powers like being a juror.

Why does the decentralized market driven rule system have to be bit-coin in particular. Ten years ago I theorized that any internet would evolve.

It doesn't. But the way some existing technologies were wrapped into the Bitcoin protocol was a revelation in decentralized consensus. It solved the long-standing Byzantine Generals problem which had been thought unsolvable for 30 some years.
Bitcoin could go away but the technology beneath won't be forgotten. Genie out of the bottle, cat out of the bag, whichever metaphor you want to use the methods of decentralized consensus are here to stay in some form.

Yeah I suppose when you go all Byzantine on the world you win.

I love that you posted this even though I completely disagree. Lol.

We need laws, we need government, we need a way of coordinating society-level responses to important issues.

Without a public elected government that is (at least in theory) accountable only to the people, private associations (corporations, hate groups, etc.) will run wild.

Much as I hate to conclude an argument against anarchy with the cliche “go to Somalia” (or the lawless parts of countries like Afghanistan or the Congo):

Well, go there and see what happens when the government is absent. Tribalistic militias take over and fight each other like hell for scarce and dwindling resources.

The example of Bitcoin is interesting but a tiny tiny facet of all the things it takes to run a country. It’s been relatively successful but it functions due to complex internal agreed-upon rules, and many other crypto-currencies have been failures and frauds.

And while I say “relatively” successful, Bitcoin’s has its challenges and dips and hasn’t come close to taking over the world like its biggest boosters predicted.

There’s no guarantee a transition to anarchy would turn out as relatively successful as Bitcoin and plenty of reasons to doubt it would.

I agree. Plus, if we're going to help enforce Imgflip's rules on other streams, what can we do if there's no one to enforce ours?
Also, in Imgflip terms, a lawless stream is a stream with no mods. And we know what happens to streams with no mods. 👀

You are correct. Speaking big picture I'm saying in the future we may see rulers fade in importance to rule sets run algorithmically. You know, without bias.
I had a lot of ideas to get out with this one and I failed to couch my thoughts in that I'm discussing politics of the next epoch of human civilization. We have only just begun to build the technological privatives on which such a government would run.

As stated in another comment not lawlessness. A leadership structure of rules without rulers.

Your examples of tribalistic militias is what I meant about anarchy devolving into dictatorships, small feudalistic ones at first. That said I guess my ideal is a dictatorless dictatorship. That is an impartial set of machine rules dictate terms. Furthermore, ideally, such rule sets would be voluntary (thus any rule would be under voluntarism) and geographically unbound. So individuals might be able to shop for the government they prefer in a marketplace of ideas. Surely at a local level there would be common denominators necessary. But taxation, benefits and policies could be unbounded from where you live. Be free from malicious motivations of it's rulers. Most importantly be served by governing structures which compete for your adherence rather than complacently enjoy a geographical monopoly.

I use the term ideally because I admit that there are so many unknowns in such a plan trying to engineer it from scratch is futile. It's something that can only be conjectured upon until the myriad problems are confronted one at a time. The American experiment couldn't predict the future and began as some fundamental structures to build upon.

I'm not going to pretend this is an idea without huge difficulties. Nor is it something that will come about in less than a span of decades or even centuries.

In the first 10 years automobiles were no better than horse and buggy on the infrastructure of the time. The internet didn't really boom until broadband was widely available decades after ARPANet. It's premature to count Bitcoin in or out in the grand scheme of things. That said I see it's importance growing more and more in the coming years precisely because it's beyond jurisdiction. It's foundationally anti-authoritarian which only becomes more valuable over time as an exit from authoritarianism.

Worth noting that money is just one application of the consensus technologies that run Bitcoin. It can be applied to other modalities.

Good discussions start with a civil meeting of the minds over disagreements. Well met sir!