This was not the argument. You are moving the goalpost. The argument was:

the fundamental functioning of people does not require ordering to be viable. Self-ordering is still ordering.

That's a misunderstanding of what I said, though I'll gladly concede to poor wording on my part. Ordering in the sense that it is imposed by someone else; self ordering is thus innately opposed to ordering in the sense I was using it in the original claim; though, again, I concede to poor wording. "does not require ordering" was meant in the definition 2 sense, not definition 1, which I thought was implied by the imperative infinitive.

Self-ordering is still ordering. Whether a government is involved in enforcing it or not is irrelevant, there will be enforcement of agreements even if the only ones conducting the enforcement are the concerned parties. That is order.

Sure.

Sure, they don’t have to be planned and regulated in advance, but eventually common agreements will produce a regulating group with enforcement authority because organizing in this way is more efficient for the market overall.

This is a point of legitimate disagreement - while it is more efficient (and desirable), I agree, it is not inevitable.

In any case, your argument is in agreement with the core point - that people do not NEED ordering (definition 2) from an authority to organize their own affairs.