I used to love this, until I saw the profound antidemocratic sentiment behind it. What Barlow is saying is that there will be a world that cannot be reached or governed, where only (rugged) individuals matter. By extension, votes will matter less, and restrictions on the abuses of the powerful will cease to be.
It felt utopian the first time I read it, but now I really do see it as dystopian. After all, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others.
Perfect anarchy will require going beyond democracy. Once all individuals can internalize altruistic social values in a perfect manner, coercion should not be required. That is effectively the sentiment behind a lot of the '60s philosophy that Barlow is channeling here.
The question is whether this state is realistically achievable. I would argue that most people, like you, eventually grow disillusioned enough to believe this will never happen - and with that premise, the entire discourse inevitably crumbles.
When there is no or insufficient authority, people muscle their way in, until the strongest one is on top. And that's what has happened: facebook and google are the silverbacks of an independent "cyberspace".
I believe the "no government" state is unstable. Something will fill that power vacuum. Which is why places with "no government" tend to be hellholes where warlords wage civil war trying to become the king of the hill.
The kind of maybe which is highly rhetorical. Few people typing here have experienced no government. Collectivism implies decision making, because life consists of making choices which affect others.
It felt utopian the first time I read it, but now I really do see it as dystopian. After all, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others.