At the risk of getting down voted just for attempting to honor the request of my anarchist associate here at DP, I don't see how anarchism can preserve freedom from societies (or groups within societies) who will be better organized to plunder and conquer. Not just by military means either. Anarchism does not have any mechanism by which it can adequately prevent the increasing centralization of power. It can't defend itself from from those who respect even less freedom of action than it has, more on that when I link the the free rider problem.
The last voluntaryist I talked to eventually said that he imagined it would evolve to where a few great men would provide protection and have many others that would basically volunteer to be his slaves. I don't see that as an attractive outcome, and that was from a guy trying to sell it to me! Maybe I just linked up with the wrong sales associate!
The free rider problem is a part of the problem, described in more detail here http://www.dailypaul.com/273348/answers-on-defense-spending-...
My issue with it goes back even to the premise on which it is founded, that of "self-ownership." I know it sounds silly at first, but after thinking it through, the concept of self-ownership does not make sense to me. Here is why... http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-libertarian-pr...
Basically if there is no God then rights are an artificial construct and we are not transcendentally morally bound to accept them. In s materialistic reality, the whole idea of "ownership" becomes silly- we don't make choices, the molecules bouncing around in our head just make us think we do. If its all time, space, matter and energy then even our freewill (and by implication our ability to "own" anything) is an illusion.
Don't get me wrong, the state sure doesn't own us. It is just that if a Creator exists then there is a moral code outside the state and outside the individual and both are morally obligated to try to seek out and follow that code, even if our pea-brains and weak nature can't do it all the time. So the idea that each new individual gets a blank sheet of paper to make their own morality on is not right, and the idea that the state gets that blank sheet of paper to impose one is also not right. The blank sheets of paper are for both to doodle on in an effort to conform with the mystic sheet which IS filled out correctly.
I also notice that they want to lump people as either "individualist" or "communtarian." Well, I can't help but notice that when it comes to the smallest most local unit of government, my family, I am quite communitarian. I get more individualist the farther one goes from that and by the time one gets to national government I am pretty much 100% individualist as regards to domestic affairs. I don't even want them to know who I am!
This view, which considers centralization of power the primary problem, is Localism. IN localism there is no one "right" place to draw the line on what the rules ought to be. Each locality sets its own, and the market sorts it out from there.
Click on my name if you want to know where to find the E-book "Localism, A Philosophy of Government"
Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)