I do not wish, at the moment, to get more than peripherally involved in the overall debate, but I would like to involve myself on the first point, i.e. voluntary/coercive organizations.

I would like to ask both sides if they are thinking more of corporations or religious cults. Corporations might be arguable, but I would be surprised to hear someone argue that cult-style coercive religious organizations are able to flourish thanks to regulatory capture.

I am not a social anarchist, so I am less concerned about "hierarchy." It is very hard for me to identify a clear and consistent definition of hierarchy in use by them. For example, some social anarchists seemingly support democratically determining who has authority over certain public goods. To me it seems hierarchial to do something like this, as it would mean a certain group of people have a claim to goods more than any others - which they supposedly say is wrong when it is private property. But since it is democratic, somehow it isn't hierarchial to them. That is all I will say about hierarchy it becomes a very convoluted discussion. 

I am more interested in people being able to choose the organizations they are part of and not part of. The authority comes from an individual's consent to be part of said institution, with the assumption that they understand the organizational structure of the institution before agreeing. They can also leave any time they want and join an independent institution if they care to do so. 

States are involuntary institutions, and that is why I oppose them. How can we abolish the state? Well we won't get there with a population that cares for the state. Like with the enlightement era which turned people against monarchies and absolute rule, there has to be a change in people's minds. People will have to want the state abolished first. As for methods, there are agorism, countereconomics, and civil disobedience. I only support violent action if it is in self-defense. So if state agents are attacking somebody I don't think people are wrong to fight back, but otherwise I don't support premeditated violence or terrorism. It will be a centuries long process, but eventually if we oppose the state enough we can transition to a polycentric society from a monocentric one, in which all people choose their institutions voluntarily. 

Most conflicts can be solved through arbitration and dispute resolution. For example, suppose a neighbor kills another's lawn through pollution. The polluter recognizes that he polluted, but doesn't think the price the pollutee is asking for reparations is fair. This leaves the polluted neighbor a few options.

1. Force his neighbor to give him all the money for his polluted land. This is risky. If they get into a violent altercation, he might lose his life. There is no state to send to jail, and he'd leave the burden of reparations to his family. Is it worth it over grass? 

2. Agree to the other neighbor's evaluation. 

3. Have an agreement with his neighbor that they should ask a third party to decide, one whom they both trust. 

#1 is not very likely because it is costly. #2 resolves the problem. Let's think about situation #3. Let's say both neighbors know a guy whom we will call Judge. They both trust Judge a lot and think he can make a fair ruling. So they both agree that Judge will determine how much polluter has to pay polutee for his damages. They go and ask Judge, and Judge gives them a particular amount. 

This then gives polluter a few options. 

1. Pay polutee the amount Judge said is fair. 

2. Don't pay polutee and fight polutee some more (remember costs of money and time are building up.) 

3. Ask polutee if they can gather some more opinions. If not, then he is left with option 1. and 2. If so, rinse and repeat.

If the amount Judge says to pay polutee doesn't seem like enough, then polutee also has these options. 

The more time and the more people they get involved, the less motivation they have to not settle the disagreement. Eventually they settle the disagreement and are happy.

So I have a few questions to ask now? 

1. Was there a forced hierarchy here? Was anybody above anybody else?

We can say maybe Judge was an authority, but his decision wasn't really binding and they both agreed to him. So probably not. 

2. Will the dispute get resolved eventually? 

Yes

3. Is violence ever really a consideration when the risks are so much higher in a stateless society than in a state-based one? 

Possibly in some other scenario with more at stake, but not in this one. 

Overall, I can see most situations happening like this. People will form agreements not because some higher authority told them, but because it is less costly to resolve disputes in a timely manner than to not do so. 

I am sure you can think up vastly more complicated cases, and I can tell you vastly more complicated solutions just as we see in the current systems. Think of dispute resolution similar to how nations resolve disputes on the international scale. Is it always the case that every country is at war? No. Yeah it happens some times, but we can't really prevent that. Is there not order despite there being no ultimate authority of law? Yes there is. We can then say there is a sort of anarchy among nation-states. Why not among individuals then?  

Sorry, this post talked about something that, while interesting, was irrelevant to, and on reflection could have derailed, the topic, so I deleted it.