How Many Anarchists Does it Take to Screw in a Lightbulb?

This scenario came to me late Friday night, and at that time I imagined it to be a colorful portrayal of anarchism.

Q: How many anarchists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: They won't. No number of anarchists will act in concert to screw in a lightbulb. Of any given number of anarchists, at least half will question by what authority they are required to screw in the lightbulb. Some will refuse out of practicality (they just don't think they need a lightbulb there), others out of the mere desire to disobey any will other than one's own. At least one person will stand up and offer to screw it in by herself if the others pay her to, but she will get shouted down by people who question the authenticity of her anarchism and accuse her of trying to impose a system of exchange in order to profit off of others. A substantial number of them will wonder aloud whether the act of screwing in a lightbulb gives assent to the existence of government-created and government-sustained monopolies like power utilities, and then they will speculate on how the absence of a monopoly of violence would affect the provision of services like electricity and sewer. After a couple hours of lively discussion, they all will realize that the gas and electric bill is left unpaid for the same reasons the lightbulb is left unscrewed, and that since they don't have any power they may as well not screw in the lightbulb.

The above scenario is really a better portrayal of the divergence of anarchisms than a portrayal of an anarchist society. Rather than descend into a ghetto of slackers, a society based on self-ownership and free association would be marked by innovation and responsibility. I first gave anarchism a serious look after reading sections of Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux. Molyneux's anarchism is based on the wholly-libertarian maxim of complete sovereignty of the individual in every aspect of his or her life, including complete economic freedom.

I was convinced of the moral necessity of individualist anarchism while reading "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner. (Hear a reading of No Treason #IV part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, etc., to part 20.) Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty is an easier and more zoomed-out read. The individualist argument for anarchism is basically this: (1) it is immoral to force a non-agressing individual to make any transaction against his or her will, (2) the state is that entity which by definition compels individuals regardless of their will to patronize its public services, and so (3) the very existence of the state is immoral.

Also see Hoppe, "On the Impossibility of Limited Government".

Btw, Happy Dead Tyrants' Day.