Anarchy in this discussion is meant in a genuine political sense, of no government that uses force and coersion to maintain structure and law.  It is not the usual meaning people have of, "Oh my guys, there is rioting in the streets, murder and people blowing up buildings".  What is meant here by anarchy is what the AO symbol of Anarchy is said to mean, "From anarchy comes order".  This order is bottom up, and represents self-organizing by society.

Well back to the question at hand here, which I post, because I have seen a number of people on here have Libertarian leanings.  To them, and others who might be able to answer is this: Are there any Libertarian arguments against Anarchy?  Why wouldn't a Libertarian go one more step and say rather than minimum government, because government is bad, get rid of all government completely?

If you are Libertarian, or know any Libertarian arguments against Anarchy, can you please explain why not to go all the way and become Anarchist?

Because anarchy can't exist for long. If nature abhors a vacuum, it abhors a power vacuum most of all. That vacuum will quickly be filled by the strongest person with the most guns, and the results will be anything but libertarian.

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.

Where in nature is anything resembling the governments than man come up with?  You can follow the Locke argument that property rights flow out of nature, but where is government in nature?  What I see is the opposite, in that nature abhors man trying to impose order on it, and man is fighting a constant battle against nature.  One can argue that markets naturally flow out of human interactions and markets do exist, without governments involved.  

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? 

It's in human nature, and in nature generally (the social hierarchy of chimpanzees, for instance), for the strong to rule over the weak and for the weak to look to the strong for leadership. So since it is an inevitabilty that government will exist, anarchism is not a legitimate political philosophy, it's just a weak attempt to raise adolescent rebellion to the level of a philosophy.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3248-democracy-beats-despotism-in-the-animal-world.html

Everywhere, sorta.

Animals vote.

How is that different than the anarchy where people vote with their feet and flee from situations they are not agreeable with, or act in a manner and stronger individuals choose to honor it?  What you have in man-made systems is a situation where the society collectively gives certain individuals the ability to inflict pain and suffering upon non-compliant individuals to get them to comply.  Where is that in nature?

Anarchy is the extreme of libertarianism.

To be a libertarian doesn't mean you have to take it to the very extreme though, it's a sliding scale. Just like how socialists don't have to believe that all property has to be communually owned.

The libertarians on this board don't take libertarianism to the point where they reject all established authority.