He's hung up on the word "anarchy." The free market argument is that what is provided by what we call government could be provided more efficiently and sanely by organizations that emerged through market processes.
There are no limits in the market. If what is desired by civilized people are protections and stability that traditionally have been provided (supposedly) by governments, entrepreneurs would set out to provide same. No reason I couldn't acquire and develop 10 square miles and offer laws and security as part of the lease agreement for my 5,000 or 10,000 lots....No reason myself and 10,000 other developers couldn't work together to create a cooperative system that provides the defenses and cohesiveness that traditional governments have provided, without the unaccountable power that is the primary failing (from a humanitarian standpoint) of the state.
Also, without traditional government, almost all threats to security and stability would likely evaporate. All wars and social ills are direct effects or unintended consequences of the policies of traditional governments. I'm sure even BILL3 can see that.
The job of government, in economic terms, is to allocate resources to produce the best outcomes for the greatest number. The market, under this definition, is just another system of government. Unlike traditional government, however, the market must adjust to reality, minute to minute, region to region, instead of creating endless catastrophes by trying to force reality to conform to the guesses of a few well-connected "experts."
The market as a system of organization is a relatively new concept, so deep thinkers like old BILL3 fail to grasp the extent to which markets can solve problems. Mr. Bill is stuck studying primitive man to try to make predictions about a situation in which people can organize with complex investment schemes, access unlimited instant information, utilize instant communication, etc.