We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I agree in general but the portrayal of anarchism/miniarchism is way off. A society with no state would still have law, police, etc., just not a monopoly on such powers. Insurance companies, for instance, would provide many of the same services as the police in the protection of property. I'm not an anarchist, but what an inaccurate portrayal.
I found the portrayal, within the confines of the definition of the formal forms of governance, to be very accurate. You are right that there certainly would not be a monopoly on the rule of law!
The "law" or "police" in an anarchic state would vary greatly from neighborhood to neighborhood. It would be very subjective and have no visible cohesion beyond the distance the bullet in your own personal firearm can travel.
You would have one mercenary force (theoretically hired by an insurance company?) attempting to enforce the seat belt law or speed limits, while the vigilante force in my self-protected sector would prevent you from driving through the 'hood at all.
Watched/listened to this presentation many times, after considering the comments above. Emma Goldman/Haymarket occur to me, but I think the discussion is valuable. Elementary and high school teachers take note? I don't think many people understand risk management...