I am confused about something. "State" is defined as a monopolistic entity that has the right to initiate force against its citizens, such as in the form of taxation. If that is the definition we use then I am an anti-statist. However, I do believe there ought to be agencies that work for the public. For example, the roads can be taken care of a private entity that people pay into. This same agency can also provide police and court systems. There can also be many different competing agencies but their fundamental purpose would be clear: to provide the services the government provides. Thus, in a way what I support, private agencies, function like governments, but they are funded very differently. They are funded not by stealing but through the market in a way. And there are several ways to accomplish the fundings. Maybe through home-owners associations, or through user fees, or sometimes outrigh charity, but whatever the means the idea is to replace the concept of a government by agencies that provide the necessities for a workable society just in place of a government. Is this anarchism?
Depends on who you ask.
If you don't attack innocent people and don't screw with them when they're doing peaceful stuff, you are an anarcho capitalist.
Yes, anarcho-capitalism, and I add that it probably wouldn't be the best business model to incorporate all the functions that the state does today into one company. Road and defense together at most. They'd probably be separated as best as specialization can handle them, but yeah.
There is a large difference between anti-state and anti-government. Nothing says a city/provincial council or what not needs a monopoly on violence. It would funtion as a sort of rating agency, fund raiser type entity, to try to fix the tweaks here and there that market isn't taking care of through profitable means.
It only takes a majority to want to eat the costs of a civilized society, the greedy (for lack of a less general and hostile word) can just free-ride.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Is this anarchism?
Sure, it would just be unworkable, I’m afraid. The government as it is would go bankrupt in the free market. Damn, its even going bankrupt while being a state, let alone a megacorp.