WP makes it a little too easy to do that… Gonna try restore it if possible.

My apologies.

So basically, to sum up your classifications, just to make sure I understood them as you meant them, there are these types of people:

1. Ignorant, not at all aware of the distinction between their personal sub-reality and absolute external reality, hence susceptible to conformism and manipulation by whoever’s views are popular.

2. Those who do realize the distinction, but believe their sub-reality is merely incomplete, not necessarily incorrect.

3. Those who know the distinction and believe their sub-reality may be both incomplete and “different”, or as you said “at odds”, with absolute reality, but that is is nevertheless the “right” reality, so they try to actually change external reality itself sub-reality of their own.

As you’ve explained, they do seem to be the most dangerous of the lot. The first two ones are predominantly just followers, of the less and more inquisitive type, but not quite there, not quite as ambitious as the third group, which feels enlightened and right to mold the world to the image of their sub-reality, causing incredible horrors in the process.

> Thus, the “be and let be” group appears to be only a sub-set of those aware of the difference between the objective reality and the sub(jective)-reality.

Good point.

> That is why people often only discover the virtues of pluralism when they cannot use the force.

If by pluralism you mean diversity, and a way of acting without force, then yes that’s quite true. If you can’t use force to get your way respecting the fact that others are different is all you’ve really got left.

I think though it is sooner possible that *everyone* is able to use force than it is that nobody will. The fact that most people still don’t use force on a daily basis, but rather voluntary interactions, seems to indicate that it is not just the inability to use force that compells people to respect diversity and that humans may very well be capable of living in diversity. Free markets seem to prove this very well on a larger scale.

In my opinion, the only thing that gets in way of this order in diversity is institutionalized force, perceived as legitimate in its continuous violent disruptions of the free market and it’s diverse nature.

> What to do when concerted action is needed and no agreed consensus can be reached?

I actually think you already answered your question in your previous paragraph. I suppose you just didn’t follow its conclusion all the way through.

If instability is a problem and like any problem, it is best to resolve it in an efficient manner, then it can be done through diverse action – basically through a free market.

Otherwise it would not be efficient because the cost would be too high. In trying to solve one problem you end up creating an even bigger one.

> The problem of literal anarchy is that no state is created to defend “the community” – the partnered citizens – a gang of bullies will and they will extort protection money calling it tax.

Which already happened. That’s why we have governments.

However I don’t think the solution you’re proposing is the answer, perhaps because we see the cause of the problem a little differently.

I believe the answer really does lie in the efficiency of diversity which you previously described.

The cause, I believe, is simply the prevalence of an idea, more than anything else, the idea that some coercion is legitimate (morally acceptable). Without the prevalence of that idea, no gang of bullies – no government, can form.

Even if a minority of people continue believing in legitimized coercion, they may simply fail to have the critical mass to pose a significant threat to the rest of the free market actors, because these free market actors can and will defend themselves and devise, through competition that free market bears, ever increasingly more efficient methods of doing so.

In short, if majority of people stopped believing that a certain group of people has any right to bully the rest and acted from that belief, the bullies would lose their power.

> literal anarchists, who have a problem when opposing organised groups as shown above;

As described above, I don’t think they do, actually.

> Thus in their case unity should be achieved only in matters of common interest which do require unity for their resolution.

“Common interest” is about a voluntary consensus reached by all of the people involved in a decision. So if you have 500 people who would be directly affected by a particular decision and only one of them opposes the proposed solution, you do not have common interest. Majority forcing the rest into submission nevertheless is exactly the kind of problem we get, that I described above. In trying to solve the problem of bullies among us, we became bullies ourselves.

It is actually obvious that this never worked. Governments were created for the sake of security of the people and became themselves the biggest threats to people’s security. This comes down to a simple equation that violence breeds violence and you can’t fight violence with violence. Coercive monopolies, which governments essentially are, never worked as solutions to the problem of protecting people from violence.

Instead they just legitimize one of the gangs and proceed to wage war against the dissident, and yes, even in a totally minarchist society where government does nothing else but manage a police force, there are dissidents – like those who wish to establish a competing police force to offer protection.

However, since coercion is exactly what I profess against, I would not force anyone to accept that idea, to agree with me and to accept anarchy. I can only hope to persuade people that it is the right idea to embrace and one that is beneficial for all of us. I don’t believe in violent revolutions. So rest assured I wont be the one condoning horrors being done in the name of freedom.

The truth is, one that only matters to me, that I can already be free. I can already live my anarchy. All I need to do is eliminate fear as an element that affects my decisions and then choose to live a life that I want to live. Insights that I have about reality of how the rest of the people in the world organize, about how economies work and about the nature of abstracts other people see as real, are on my side.

> While the sole universally accepted matter is that of preventing foreign and domestic coercion against individuals

My point is that you cannot prevent coercion by using coercion.. obviously. So governments, of ANY sort, are simply out of the question.

> What matters is that in order do be dominant, the adepts of individuality/liberty must prove themselves more successful than their competitors.

You only need to compare the way free market works with the way governments work, and their outcomes.

> Until now, there have been no documented case of actual anarchy and “lands of the free” have been a minority in terms of both lifespan and population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

A lot of the times, though, governments did screw up the picture, but again governments are born only when majorities start believing in legitimacy of violence.

Cheers