When I hear the term Anarchy I cannot help but think of the Wild West or a post-apocalyptic Fallout Scenario. I know many Anarchists say that Anarchy does not mean nor rules or no government, however I feel like most Anarchos struggle to present a practical solution to implement their believes of Voluntarinism.
To me Anarchy means that you do not let your actions be guided by an institution, but by your own rational and moral, therefore I think there are two different kind of people in our current world who practice Anarchy: Heroes and the Mafia.
Heroes
Acting on their own philosophy and saving others. This is what defines a hero to me. Nowadays you often see heroism used for wrong things: Let's help minorities by language policing social media. Let's help the people in Africa by sending them food and clothers, even though this is destroying their local food and fabric industry, who can't keep up with the dumping prices achieved through "charity". Let's create a save space!
These people feel themselves as heroes, however to me it lacks the "own philosophy" part. Many of them do what they think is good because they have been told what is good and what is bad.
In the current Marrvel Series on Netflix (Daredevil, Punisher) the vigilantism of Heroes is a main topic. I think it shows that the line between Hero and Villain can be very thin and is sometimes only visible in why they do it.
Looking back the anti authoritarian nature of Heroes and my obsession with 80s Cartoons and Anime, I would guess a lot of my personal tendencies have been influenced by that. I often don't like to do things just because people told me I should do them.
Many of the Anarchists I meet on Steem say the NAP (Non-Aggression-Principle) and voluntarism are the basis of Anarchy. However Heroes, who are usually rather violent people, are obviously not acting in complience with it. It might be a war of words, but to me Anarchism only means that you have your own convictions and you are willing to fight for them. If the NAP is the sum of what you come up with after carefully thinking every moral and rational aspect through, then that is a nice thing, but to put a moral codex in front of anarchism and especially one that is extremely bendable, is not Anarchism to me. My favorite (Anti-)Heroes were Lobo and Deadpool, who shit on the moral codex of DC and Marvel.
Mobsters
A thing I learned about Heroism, is that it is highly overrated. I sure have made the fault in my life that I did not think of myself enough, it is often the best contribution to society and the people around you to take care of yourself. On the other hand I think Mobsters and Black Markets have a unreasonably bad reputation. We also have a war on words here. Pretty much any organisation that acts outside of law and state regulation gets thrown in the same basket as human and organ trafficers, assassins and drug kingpins.
When it comes to the question "how will people be protected", many Anarchos answer that there can be free agents who offer protection. To me this sounds a lot like protection money. A practice we see all around the world. Personally I actually do not think that it is all bad, when the police is lazy and corrupted, it is good to have some people you can call if your shop get's threatened. However I do think that the state should make protection money obsolete, but not ban the practice.
My knowledge about organized crime is quite limited, but from what I can see in the ten million Hollywood movies about the Italian Mob and Sopranos, I think it is fair to say that the mafia is defined by having their own law within their organization. But again Mobsters are famous for not being very pacifist people.
Would you agree that Mobsters and Heroes are to some degree embodiments of the Anarchist spirit or do they disqualify, because of the violence they enact?