[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
axiom: a stateless society is better than a statist society for maximizing freedom and liberty

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed!

[ QUOTE ]
first point: the problem of maintaining a statist society without moving back towards a state or ("states by other names") is a problem of maintaining some sort of social cohesion/social order

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Luckily, Liberty is the mother and not the daughter of order!

[ QUOTE ]
second point: this is only possible through having a community (communities)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "communities"? It seems to me that any sort of workable anarchist society is going to have something resembling a town/village/community/city... and any workable anarchist society is going to be HIGHLY decentralized, so I would think that there would likely be lots of small communities and fewer huge cities.

[ QUOTE ]
third point: a viable community requires a rough egalitarianism in terms of economic equality

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "rough egalitarianism" and "economic equality"? It seems to me that throughout history there are plenty of examples of 'communities' that have been quite inegalitarian. These, of course, have generally existed within statist frameworks, and aren't necessarily the 'ideal' that anarchists should work toward.
But it seems to me that any free society is going to have some reasonable amount of economic inequality, because a free society allows individuals to control their own lives and people have different abilities/habits/luck and make different choices.
So I think you need to be more clear on what you mean here, and on what you think might be 'acceptable' levels of inequality. Certainly the inequality we have today would be inconducive to liberty and to a stateless society, but our current inequalities are primarily a result of the statism we aim to eliminate.
So I guess my initial reaction is to say that a) there will some fair amount of inequality in a stateless society, b) that it will be far far less than the inequality today, c) that such inequality will pose some danger to a free society (but that the danger will be drastically reduced without the presence of a centralized and coercive State), and d) that any aggressive attempts to eliminate economic inequalities in a stateless society should be opposed.

[ QUOTE ]
In essence that rough equality is not the antithesis of liberty, but rather one of its bedrocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, most libertarians and ACists already agree with this, except that the 'equality' they mean is one of authority and not of property.
But I would agree that substantial economic inequality is also bad, and that any society ('free" or otherwise) that attempted to exist within a framework of massive economic inequality would be unworkable.