I thoroughly agree with your conclusion. Anarchy is the goal of both extreme ends of the bell-curve. Total freedom with no controls at all is the Wild West where primitive reactions, eg violence, vilification of those outside the central grouping etc, go unpunished.
Social anarchist philosophy relies on Morrison's "personal responsibility" which is taken up by only a small minority as many, those who are as yet undeveloped and immature whether due to young age or simply rejecting the need to "grow up", are incapable of accepting responsibility.... as appears to be the case with M.
if all are as irresponsible as M. the nation would crumple and be unable to complete even the most basic national tasks. if all are "responsible adults" the ideal might come to fruition... but its contrary to human diversity and nature to preserve one's own little schemes.
we could deal with leftist anarchy (libertarianism) too but that would take a text book, whereas rightist anarchy is simplistic and self-indulgent.
How this engages with democracy is an interesting theoretical matter as libertarianism would prefer zero governance. This is where right equals left. both are insensible to national management.
How much freedom should one have?
what happens with too excessive Govt management of freedoms?
and where is the mid-line where both freedoms and democratic principles are equally respected?
