Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.” The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Just be thankful this is a democracy! At least we got to have a say!”
-Crimethinc
I'm quite familiar actually. This is exactly what a Marxist, or a libertarian, or a capitalist, or a young earth creationist does when they can't make arguments and just want to rely on some great collection of work that they promise has all the answers. It's quite an annoying way to try and make a point.
But people naturally fall into those patterns, unless some higher authority prevents it. See again, HOAs.
Nationalism (or other identitarianism) is what differentiates fascism from other authoritarianisms, but authoritarianism is at the root. Psychologically, people prone to fascism are people who fear chaos and want to believe that there is a "strong man" in charge and a well defined enemy to fight.
Liberalism does protect private property rights, but also individual rights, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. All the aspects you skipped are checks on authority. Liberalism also doesn't "guarantee" private property. Property rights are not absolute in liberal democracy and can be curtailed when necessary to uphold broader individual freedoms or to promote equality and social welfare. I think you are confusing liberalism with neoliberalism, which I would informally define as free market Darwinism with a thin veneer of liberal formalities.
I was playing a bit loose with the term to make a point. The reality is that most people don't want anarchy, which implies that moving to anarchy would have to be forced on them, at least until they got used to it.
Lets just say they are a great argument for anarchy. Democratically managed or not, it doesn't make much of a difference. Every resident seems to find themselves in the minority on some issue, which turns into power trips and often lawsuits. Yet, HOAs are popping up everywhere for some reason.
And anarchism does? Sure, it sounds great that people would just rely on each-other for locally sourced food, but liberalism does nothing to prevent that from happening either. None of the anarchist arguments I have ever seen answer this without just blaming it on the current global system. I'm also pretty certain that the human population has grown well beyond the point where we can farm enough food for everyone without industrial efficiencies, and regulation of externalities like runoff and water use. Watch what's about to happen to farm capacity globally because a few mines in a strait on the other side of the planet.
The word "subjugate" is way over the top. Anarchist or not, every community is going to have some rules that everyone must adhere to. We are all subject to each-other in all sorts of ways, and it's rarely a cut and dry case of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Humans aren't built to live in isolation, and communities don't operate without rules. You are going to accuse me of not understanding that anarchists have ideas to address this, but the problem is that I do understand that. I also understand that your "subjugation" framing works just as well for them.