1. If a country/region exists in a state of anarchy, what prevents a nearby empire from conquering it? Military action requires organization of the kind you can only get through forced subservience to a hierarchy. In order to defend against an invading army a region under anarghy would have to turn to insurgency, warlordism, and eventual totalitarianism itself.
2. If a person decides to break contracts, what stops them from doing it and just running away and repeating the process? People dont have telepathy, so others wouldnt know hes untrustworthy, and there is only you looking for him (if you even bother). He can just repeat it.
3. If people start dropping dead with mysterious illness, who investigates the source of it, and punishes the perpetrator? How do people even realize its the same illness without some ability to share information en masse.
4. It is impossible to get out of 0 wealth without assistance. Therefore over time almost all people will accumulate at 0 wealth, while few persons own all the wealth. At that point what stops them from simply killing the wealthy and dividing the spoils? And if they cant, and are kept in perpetual poverty, how is this any different from totalitarianism?
5. If the principles of NAP are followed strictly, then parents would have no authority over children. The only solution is to permit ownership of people, but that leads to more and more people owned (see 4), which is no different than totalitarianism.
6. Anarchy assumes people will have the IQ and control of emotions in order to make perfectly rational decisions for the present and distant future, even hundreds of generations in the future. That is the only way to have altruism in anarchy. Which leads me to ask, what do you do when people are low IQ or even the geniuses get emotional, and make shit decisions en masse which results in billions dying (including you)?
Please answer all questions irrefutably, not just one and done.