Well this is the reality/pseudo reality problem I have with Libertarianism. Libertarians want to believe that most people are inherently good, because Libertarians themselves are. Some people just aren't. Actually a lot of people just aren't. It would be wonderful if people could have some sense just talked into them, but as I said, I think we are generations away from that kind of thinking. There will always be two types of people: The followers and the Advantage Takers. There will be a great majority of people that agree with you and do indeed think peace is objectively better than violence. I would reason to say even the majority of people. But there will be outliers as well, ready to pounce on people as soon as they feel safe in this new peaceful community they have created. As it stands right now, the only thing keeping some of those people from going out and committing crimes is the threat of centralized government power, of being locked away.

The more simplistic way I see it even is through my own children. One is a carrot and the other a stick. My daughter can be reasoned with, she understands that good behavior leads to positive results, so she is well behaved nearly all the time. My son cannot be reasoned with. He is a stick. He needs threats, punishments, time-outs and things taken away from him. No amount of reasoning with him will get him to behave properly. He has to know there is consequence for his actions.

My real question then is, what are the proposed consequences in an anarchist society for those that just won't conform to an ethical framework of peace? And then who enforces that? I think it's naive to expect that every person will choose peace over power, or what they perceive as power. Some (men especially) think that peace makes you weak, and this is possibly a trait built into our DNA. So what do we do with those people? How does a decentralized society take care of lawbreakers, or disrupters of the peace, without inherently resorting to some form of centralizing?