Any Libertarian arguments against Anarchy?

[Viper1]

richardhutnik said:

Viper1 said:
It doesn't work very well large scale. Property rights and currency would be too chaotic.

We Libertarians understand a solid foundation is of great benefit and you need some structure to ensure that foundation stays in place. Under an anarchy system, that solid foundation doesn't exist. And as I noted before, scale is a factor. You can build a tree house with no foundation just fine but try building a large skyscraper with no foundation and it won't last very long.

So, for there to be society, there has to be a minimum level of monopolization of coersive force to make people comply against their wishes, or you couldn't keep the structures in place?  This means a court system, with a single judge who decides whether or not an individual is restrained forcefully so what they currently possess can be given to someone else who may of had it in the past, right?  Also, as part of this, is the use of lethal force against those who end up going on land and using it against the desires of those who currently are on the land, right?  And with currency, you have the same court systems that will force someone to take a single uniformed currency in exchange for property they no longer have, either via a contract or compensation.

In order for a society function and maintain itself, it needs this monopoly of coersive force to some extent?  Or am I missing what you might be arguing for here?  As in you would define government as something other than the use of coersive force to cause compliance with some norms and standards.

You seem to be unifying the use of force into a single person but that's not necessary at all.   You could have a court or private mediation system made up of multiple judges (each elected) who pass judgements which could then be ratified by by a peer groups (similar to a jury) or group of elected mediators.   That way any use of force is derived from the people while the execution of that force is granted to a 3rd party of elected enforcers. 

What I mean is that you can have force allocated to public, private and citizenry together.  However, maintaining the foundation I mentioend before will require some force regardless of where it comes.  The key is ensuring it is only the minimum level of force necessary to maintain the stability of the foundation.

In a small groups, people can work together without the need for a major government.  Burning Man is a great example of this.   But compared to a country, it is small, it is limited in time (1 week per year) but even then it exists in a system that was established under a centralized government (the US government).

Question: under anarchy, who would set the standards of weights and measures?