Yes, because Lysander Spooner and Frédéric Bastiat were SUCH barbarians, huh? :?
The non-aggression principle applies in our daily existence to the vast majority of the population on the basis of sheer human morality; hence the reason you don't fear getting blown away the second you step out your front door in modern Western society.
But that by no means implies that anarchism has no contingency plan for the minority of society who are, psychologically, sociologically, or otherwise, too damaged to apply the non-aggression principle universally. Anarchy doesn't mean no police, nor insurers, nor any modern entity currently controlled by the State. It simply means that their authority over your life would be voluntary and based on the needs of the market (at least, in market anarchism.)
Babylonian law was never applied in a stateless society, so I see no comparison to the barbarism it spurred and the theory of voluntarism.
Based on your generally dismissive attitude towards anarchists, I highly doubt you will ever get around to this, but should you ever feel the need to learn more about that which you seem to hate so much, I highly recommend you read For A New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard. If your mind is open, you may just discover the hypocrisy of modern American Libertarianism, in the political sense.
"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: