As one who understands norms as an adaptive technology, it has occurred to me that a norm may be progress, but a norm is not an end-point. To treat any norm as a position or end-point, and staunchly defend it regardless the challenge, would be inhibiting to whatever comes after, or inhibit necessary change if the human condition changes significantly1.
The end of chattel slavery may have been progress, but if it were the end-point, there would be no need to continue discussions of ethics, liberty, or norms. As many anarchists of all types are aware, there still exists mass enslavement to mythologies, governments, and other 'vested interests.'
While I have concluded that some form of 'anarchism' is progress, it has also occurred to me that this is not the end-point. If some form(s) of anarchism were to occur, it is very likely that experience will teach several unexpected lessons. As 'great' as anarchism or autonomy might be, it would be arrogant and misguided to treat it as the ONLY relevant progress in the evolution of norms.
At whatever point anarchism is achieved, it is my wish that the pursuits of anarchists are not treated as end points or dogmas, but rather as a stepping stone to whatever comes after. Whatever comes after one leaves the safe 'birds nest' of anarchism, I do not know, but I only encourage persons seeking enlightenment to be adaptive enough to embrace that change and uncertainty.