Anarchism has nothing to do with the absence of laws, the chief fallacy in the popular conception of anarchism is that it means "no rules". Anarchism literally means no leaders. In fact, the classic anarchist theorists like Bakunin wrote extensively about how people would take up a general sort of natural honour code (for want of a better term) that replace the need to be policed. The existance of "rules", which, in a stateless society would differ dramaticlly in conception, articulation, and application from the rules of bourgeois statist society, does not imply that said community is restrained in its liberty. Rather, they would instead be rendered essential truisms, axiomatic if you will. Sorry for tangent and I didnt mean talk down to anyone or anything. "Whats right and whats wrong?" is a question we will be unable to ask in the future language of global stateless society as it will be replaced by a rational, scientific empathy for all life. And it is with this in mind, that the problem of family and by extension overpopulation must be examined.
There is an essential difference, in my opinion, between organic and inorganic familial relations. Under the material conditions of a market economy and the political monopoly of the financier/businessmen caste, which promotes a cut throat ethos the relations between people blood related all too easily become strained and artificial. There is an honest difference between genuinly loveing someone you are blood related to because of who they are as a person and what theyve done for you, and "loving" someone begrudgingly "just because their family".
Tribal and so called "primitive" societies from what I've seen, postulate (at least in theory) a much more warm, heart-affirming, and honest code of familial interaction. though it certainly does retain flaws in some cases. So-called tribal societies are not a blanket: some are patriarchial, some are not; some are encouraging of the youth, others repressive. Dare I say, sometimes its downright reactionary (FGM, unconsensual marriages), but in general, in its bonding communial ritualism valueable lessons can be gleamed from it.
Contrariwise, the alienation felt by humans in the technologically advanced first world, allows us to reconsider previously held notions though at the same time it is the springboard for this. In the nuclear family unit the wife is subserviant and the children are property. In our first world alienation we can readily see this and thus disregard emopty notions of sanctity in subserviance. Monogamous relationships, caretaking and personal loyalty to ones parents and kin is not inherintly oppresive, but often the conditions of modern technological society make it so.
Just as Marx (obviously not an anarchist but I love em anyways) proposed for the workers to take ahold the reigns of the state (which he defined as a the tool of class oppression) to overthrow, punish, and erase the exploiters; so too can the family structure be re-taken, subverted, and used to our own ends by those of us who are "progressive, nomadic, off the grid" or whatever term you wish to use. This subverted street family would take nods from the tribal model in its various forms while cheerfully and ironically embracing and thus dashing to bits stereotypical elements of the bourgeois family unit.
