[Smertios]

How do you know? Can you think of a single instance of (consumer-damaging) cartel formation, exploitation, etc. taking place without the critical help of government?

All drug cartels... Cocaine and marijuana would not be as expensive as they are, if it wasn't for cartels being formed, even if they are illegal.

Cartel formation, exploitation, etc. are just red herrings used to justify government intervention, invariably for the benefit of politicians, typically for the benefit of their capitalist cronies.

What power do you see any so-called "political actors" having in an anarchy? Isn't political power entirely dependant on the state, without which it is non-existent?

Power is defined simply as the ability of one actor to control other actors and resources. There is no need for a state for power to exist. Any human social network will present power relations, since rarely two people will be identical. Charisma, money, position, friendship etc all can give someone more power.

In a society in which private property rights are the ultimate source of legitimacy, how can anybody manipulate the flow of money, become powerful, etc.?

Imagine there was no state. Power would be defined solely by how rich each person is. The wealthiest would be able to get together, and thus, control who is paid, how much etc. To put it in simpler terms: there is nothing preventing the wealthy to form cartels and exploit their customers, if there isn't a state to regulate the economy. Those powerful and wealthy people would be able to sell their products by any price they wish, making it a perpetual situation in which the less powerful/poor people can never change their status. Soon, these cartels would become fiefs, and a situation similar to feudalism would rise again. The land owner would own everything: streets, buildings, farms. Everyone would be working for those people, who would form a new aristocracy. Etc.

Keep in mind that feudal domains, before liberalism arose, were all private property, not organized states...

[Eran]

All drug cartels...

Drug cartels use violence to enforce their territorial monopoly. In that sense they more like government than like private business.

And the real reason cocaine and marijuana are as expensive is government prohibition. Without such prohibition, the market would be dominated by law-abiding corporations, not known for using guns. If you have any doubt, consider the transition in the nature of the alcohol industry post prohibition.

Power is defined simply as the ability of one actor to control other actors and resources. There is no need for a state for power to exist. Any human social network will present power relations, since rarely two people will be identical. Charisma, money, position, friendship etc all can give someone more power.

In a free society, any actor can control his own property, as well as the property of those who voluntarily entrusted him with the right to control some of their property. This power is not political in nature. This is in sharp contrast with any state-based system in which select few have the power to control the property (and, by extension, the lives) of many others - political power.

The wealthiest would be able to get together, and thus, control who is paid, how much etc.

You are jumping to conclusions. The wealthiest will have no interest to come together - they have become wealthy by satisfying the needs of millions of people, and have done that through fierce competition with each other. Any collusion will invariably open a door to new competitors. Without state regulations, barriers to entry in any market are much lower, and such potential competition always exists from actors at the edge of the relevant industry.

You are assuming a global cartel somehow being created and sustained. In fact, creating a global concentration of power is much MUCH easier to do by using the machinery of state. To the extent that the global elite has not been able to do that so far suggests strongly that such cooperation is much more difficult than you think.

Soon, these cartels would become fiefs, and a situation similar to feudalism would rise again. The land owner would own everything: streets, buildings, farms. Everyone would be working for those people, who would form a new aristocracy. Etc.

Feudalism has always relied on aggression to maintain its structure. With aggression ruled out through social norms (much as a military coup is ruled out in the US today), nothing like feudalism could be sustained.
Additionally, feudalism existed at a time when land was by far the most valuable resource in the economy. This is far from being the case today. Land in general is plentiful. It is only expensive near city centres. The vast majority of society's wealth is distributed through countless non-land resources.

Keep in mind that feudal domains, before liberalism arose, were all private property, not organized states...

They were organized mini-states, as they relied on aggression to control their population. As soon as such aggressive control relaxed, you started seeing the emergence of free-towns, leading ultimately to a breakdown of the feudal system and the emergence of the modern world. Not, please note, through democracy, but through free trade.

[powertoolsculpture]

Democracy is a god-awful idea, but calling libertarians 'fascist' is inane. To do so betrays a fundamental lack of comprehension to what that word means as other than a mindless left-wing smear tactic. Why don't you ask an actual fascist if libertarians are fascist? Seriously, don't be a tool.

[Politicalwanderer]

This whole post is nonsequitur. What is being describing is not so much democracy, rather the functions of a parliamentary style state run system. I'd prefer democracy over some small bearu dictating what is libertarian and what is not. Educating people and allowing them to collectively express their will in a transparent, purely managerial state apparatus is no way hinders the pursuit of libertarian law and policy. This concept of action is as old as modern libertarian ideals themselves. Read Benjamin Tucker for example, whose anarchist philosophy reject the use of the state, but still advocate educated action from the collective of people to free the individual. I think the Cato institute has it wrong.