You keep saying this “power vacuums do not exist” line, and I’m wondering what you mean by it, because it’s used to refer to a phenomenon that we can observe everywhere, all the time.

Do you mean that the situation in which no person or group has the power to control the people and resources in a region has never existed? Because that’s what a power vacuum is: When no person or group has the power to make and enforce a set of rules in a region.

The first example that comes to mind of a power vacuum is when the substitute teacher leaves the fifth graders alone for fifteen minutes, and comes back to find the class playing “tag-but-the-floor-is-lava” on the tables. Of course, the fifth graders have an internal hierarchy, so they’ve already established some new norms and rules with some unofficial leaders to bout that have filled the power vacuum left by the teacher when they left the room. Regardless, this serves as a great illustration of the concept of a power vacuum: When the teacher is in the room, they are the centre of power. When they leave, the students take on the role of making and enforcing their own rules, thereby filling the power vacuum created by the absence of the teacher. The short in-between period from when the teacher has left until a new set of rules and enforcement mechanisms has been established is typically referred to as a “power vacuum”.

Saying “enforcement never prevents any crime” is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they’ve incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.

If you’re talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.

Yes, it’s been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn’t mean law enforcement doesn’t prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.

You say they’re arguing against strawmen, but do nothing to refute the arguments or show why they’re strawmen. Let’s say you have what you want: Rules but no rulers, direct democracy, and government but no state (please explain the latter in more detail).

The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job. A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven’t ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you’ll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.

These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn’t agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven’t even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.

Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to “rulers” or “the state” (i.e. the bureaucracy).

In this specific context it is quite relevant that they’re an atheist, and therefore presumably relatively sceptical of religion in general. That’s a bias colouring their response that they’re disclaiming that they have.