Works in Practice, Just Not in Theory?

Being free to accept the rules means being free to reject them. With a state, you don't get that. Warm and fuzzy stories about wise, rational men, in illo tempore, pretty much make no sense and carry no weight.

"Consent of the governed". Actual, not figuratively speaking.

Also, the choice of an arbiter, for a limited period of time, for practical reasons, is in many ways similar to accepting anesthetic and going under the knife. It's not like you're saying that the doctor is entitled to rule you.

I would tend to define anarchy as the absence of any pre-commitment to resolve disputes peacefully.

That does not mesh with what I think of as anarchy. I rather think of it as market, not governmental, provision of all goods and services.

Imagine, for instance, David Friedman's vision of competitive enforcement and arbitrative agencies. Here we have nothing resembling the classical state, and yet people do pre-commit to settle disputes peacefully, by signing up with agencies that will take their disputes to arbitrators.

The Leeson article relies upon 2 anecdotal cases: pirates and Somalia.

That is much too flimsy a base to support any generalizations. Consider the counter-examples of lawless and violent Gaza and Zimbabwe.

Les--I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't actually think that Zimbabwe's problems are caused by a lack of government.

When you take a job you must submit to the rule-book of the company that hires you. I don't see anything wrong with this, because you're allowed to resign if you get tired of it. Were Pirates who got tired allowed to just step off the boat and go their merry way? I don't know. If yes, then Leeson is just describing a colorful example of private enterprise.

Les: you're not seriously saying that Zimbabwe is any kind of example of a stateless society, are you? Lawless, perhaps, in the sense of law as natural justice, but certainly not in any kind of de facto sense. Mugabe remains in charge, issuing diktats, enforcing hyperinflation...