I understand you want to steer the argument towards "when do we just pull out our guns and shoot each other?" but we don't, because that's degeneracy, not anarchy.

On the contrary. I'm steering the argument towards the most natural thing for a group of people to do - they disagree on things. I'm asking you how do you resolve disputes in an egalitarian system where everyone is his own authority no opinion is more valid than the other? If convincing people worked the way you said it did, we would live in perfect harmony - anarchy or whatever system you pick.

I applaud your pragmaticism but it's naive and things get extremely complicated irl when dealing with people. If I hold one worldview and you hold another there's hardly any convincing that's possible. I'll readily give you an example with believers in God and atheists, I bet you know how this debate goes and how pointless it gets.

True anarchy is not a state of being, it's an ideal to strive for. Of course people are going to end up disagreeing, but then the educated and idealistic rationality and reason of the community needs to stand together, and pull towards the ideal, not devolve into factions fighting over right and wrong. Resolve conflicts with debate, and realize we can't ever agree on everything, but so long as we agree on something, we have grounds for working together.

Does everyone in the anarchy hold that to be true? Now you're talking of the community exercising its will on the minority who's not on board and thus becoming an authority. As in majority rule, as in a democracy. What happens when you have a black or white issue like say should abortion be allowed? Many people are willing to die on that hill so how would we get a compromise?