The Problem with Anarchism

[Marenco]

[TheTexan]

I think governments have a useful purpose. They set expectations, without which, you don't know if you're breaking anyone's law or not.

But I also think governments and anarchy are compatible.

As long as you retain your right to separate from a government, taking with you whatever is rightfully yours, then you retain your freedom.

[Madison320]

I think governments have a useful purpose. They set expectations, without which, you don't know if you're breaking anyone's law or not.

But I also think governments and anarchy are compatible.

As long as you retain your right to separate from a government, taking with you whatever is rightfully yours, then you retain your freedom.

I don't think you have a right to separate from your government unless you move or never interact with other citizens.

Over the years I've boiled down the whole argument to this: "You want to start an anarchy on an island so you get a bunch of like minded people to make it happen. How are you going to defend the island? More importantly, "Whose going to be in charge of defense?". Because guess what? That guy is now the head of your government, like it or not.

[ClaytonB]

I think governments have a useful purpose. They set expectations, without which, you don't know if you're breaking anyone's law or not.

But I also think governments and anarchy are compatible.

Nailed it!



There is nothing "evil" about government, any more than there is something "evil" about a homeowners' association. Properly understood, both fulfill roughly the same role in society, just at different scales. The problem with government, in actual practice, is that many (most?) people believe that government has some kind of magical power to convert crimes into non-crimes, and to convert non-crimes into crimes, which it does not. If it's assault for me to hit you over the head with a billy club because you're "having an attitude" with me, then it's assault when a police officer does the very same thing. There is no tort (injury) to anyone else if I smoke some substance you disapprove of me smoking, or drink some liquid you disapprove of me drinking, therefore, it cannot be a crime (or even a civil injury), and government has no legitimate power to make it into one.

When property owners get together and form an HOA, they do not confer upon one special property-owner the right to club any of the others over the head, perhaps "for reasons of HOA-security" which are protected from disclosure by "HOA-security and HOA-secrecy laws". Anyone who heard of such an arrangement would consider the participants in this HOA to be insane. And yet, that is precisely how many people think of government. Rather, you can form a government that is bound by the same natural law as binds all individuals within the country that government was formed to secure and improve. In an HOA, certain areas of land may be designated as common-use for parks, etc. and their upkeep paid from fees. Not every blade of grass must be "privatized" in order to have a flourishing society. But the Leviathan-State is pure evil. It is the universal crime-lord masquerading as the champion of justice, peace and prosperity, while bringing about the precise opposite.

</soapbox>

[TheTexan]

I don't think you have a right to separate from your government unless you move or never interact with other citizens.

Over the years I've boiled down the whole argument to this: "You want to start an anarchy on an island so you get a bunch of like minded people to make it happen. How are you going to defend the island? More importantly, "Whose going to be in charge of defense?". Because guess what? That guy is now the head of your government, like it or not.

Ideally the terms of separation would be outlined in the contract you signed.

Absent of that, all parties involved have an obligation to make a good faith effort to find an arrangement that keeps all parties whole. In some cases that may indeed mean moving or never interacting with other citizens.

[Matt Collins]

Anarchy does not take in to account human nature and how some humans are predatory. There must be some, very limited, very restrained government, to provide justice and attempt to secure the individual rights of the citizens. It doesn't do a good job at this, but so far it is the best system humans have found. But as Jefferson quipped, government must be "reset" every once in a while.

[Invisible Man]

I don't think you have a right to separate from your government unless you move or never interact with other citizens.

Over the years I've boiled down the whole argument to this: "You want to start an anarchy on an island so you get a bunch of like minded people to make it happen. How are you going to defend the island? More importantly, "Whose going to be in charge of defense?". Because guess what? That guy is now the head of your government, like it or not.

But that made up scenario is not a description of any state that exists or that ever has existed in history.

The institution of the state, everywhere that it has ever existed, has always only come about by one group of people subjugating another group of people by military conquest.

And every state that exists maintains its existence by a continual use of force to keep its subjects subjugated to it.

To be an anarchist is to affirm that it is morally wrong to conquer other people by violence and subjugate them to your rule.

[Invisible Man]

Anarchy does not take in to account human nature and how some humans are predatory. There must be some, very limited, very restrained government, to provide justice and attempt to secure the individual rights of the citizens. It doesn't do a good job at this, but so far it is the best system humans have found. But as Jefferson quipped, government must be "reset" every once in a while.

Has the kind of government you just described ever been tried anywhere?

As far as I know it has not. All we have ever had are the very same humans that you just described as the ones who are predatory preying on others.

But given that your proposed nonpredatory government that is very limited and restrained and that provides justice and secures individual rights has never been tried, I wonder how it can be called the best system humans have found.

[ClaytonB]

Anarchy does not take in to account human nature and how some humans are predatory. There must be some, very limited, very restrained government, to provide justice and attempt to secure the individual rights of the citizens. It doesn't do a good job at this, but so far it is the best system humans have found. But as Jefferson quipped, government must be "reset" every once in a while.

The existence of the State must not be tolerated for precisely the reason you have appealed to in order to justify its existence. The State, by virtue of its monopoly on violence, necessarily becomes the one and only game in town for predators. It becomes the unification of all petty predators into a unitary super-predator. The only real "crime" of petty criminals is that they have sought to operate as a sole-proprietor, or they have ventured to form a gang in competition with the oldest, richest, most experienced, most heavily armed gang in existence: the State.

So, anarchy not only takes into account human nature, it is the inevitable conclusion of seriously accounting for human nature. The root problem in the State is the privilege-principle -- one set of laws for us, and another set of laws for everybody else. The privilege-principle is the kernel of moral reasoning in the mind of any crook. He benefits from not being stolen from (because most people are law-abiding), yet he steals. And this is precisely how it is with the State, except that the State has the benefit of practically unlimited armor. The State already is the worst-case scenario. The State is the very thing that it is warning us that we need to be protected from. "You want me on that wall" to protect you .... from people exactly like me. That's the reasoning of the State. The State is the terrorist par excellence.

[Madison320]

But that made up scenario is not a description of any state that exists or that ever has existed in history.

Militaries have never existed?

But that made up scenario is not a description of any state that exists or that ever has existed in history.

The institution of the state, everywhere that it has ever existed, has always only come about by one group of people subjugating another group of people by military conquest.

And every state that exists maintains its existence by a continual use of force to keep its subjects subjugated to it.

To be an anarchist is to affirm that it is morally wrong to conquer other people by violence and subjugate them to your rule.

I agree with most of the above but you're missing the most important point. You can affirm all day long that it's wrong to conquer people but that won't stop it. If you define a state as the group of people in a geographic location that has the most force then there's no such thing as "no state". It's impossible. There's ALWAYS going to be a state forcing you do do things. That the nature of force. So the whole idea of anarchism is irrelevant. There's no such thing. In the caveman days it was Grog, the big guy with the club. Now it's government police and military. The best you can do is manage the state.

How are you going to protect your island anarchy?

[Madison320]

The existence of the State must not be tolerated for precisely the reason you have appealed to in order to justify its existence. The State, by virtue of its monopoly on violence, necessarily becomes the one and only game in town for predators. It becomes the unification of all petty predators into a unitary super-predator. The only real "crime" of petty criminals is that they have sought to operate as a sole-proprietor, or they have ventured to form a gang in competition with the oldest, richest, most experienced, most heavily armed gang in existence: the State.

So, anarchy not only takes into account human nature, it is the inevitable conclusion of seriously accounting for human nature. The root problem in the State is the privilege-principle -- one set of laws for us, and another set of laws for everybody else. The privilege-principle is the kernel of moral reasoning in the mind of any crook. He benefits from not being stolen from (because most people are law-abiding), yet he steals. And this is precisely how it is with the State, except that the State has the benefit of practically unlimited armor. The State already is the worst-case scenario. The State is the very thing that it is warning us that we need to be protected from. "You want me on that wall" to protect you .... from people exactly like me. That's the reasoning of the State. The State is the terrorist par excellence.

There's no such thing as an anarchy. There's always a state. It's the nature of force.

It's easy to demonstrate this with a simple question. How are you going to defend your anarchy from invaders?

[TheTexan]

There's no such thing as an anarchy. There's always a state. It's the nature of force.

It depends on how you define "state". If you define the "state" as mere criminals, as I do, then we live in anarchy currently today. The mere existence of criminals in an anarchist world does not make it un-anarchist.

[jmdrake]

Anarchy does not take in to account human nature and how some humans are predatory. There must be some, very limited, very restrained government, to provide justice and attempt to secure the individual rights of the citizens. It doesn't do a good job at this, but so far it is the best system humans have found. But as Jefferson quipped, government must be "reset" every once in a while.

The problem with the minarchist mindset is that it keeps people focused on government solutions rather than solutions. Sure minarchists want 'better" government solutions. But still, government solutions. Look at the GOP response to BLM "defund the police." Supposedly libertarian Tucker Carlson (he was going to introduce Ron Paul remember?) was like "Defund the police? That's crazy!!!!" But you had like 40+ cops in Uvalde Texas milling around in the hallway while children were being slaughtered all decked out in their tactical gear, their bullet proof vests, riot shields etc. . And just weeks later a civilian with nothing but a handgun took out an active shooter armed with an AR-15 firing only 10 shots, 8 of them hit their mark. No riot gear. Not ballistic shields. No tactical gear. No police chief on the phone trying to negotiate with the killer. 15 seconds and the threat was neutralized versus 1 hour and 45 minutes of....well....nothing. Who really has done more to advance the cause of gun freedom? Politicians who give away AR-15 right after a school shooting? The "re-fund the police" talking heads on Fox news? Or people like Elisjsha Dicken? (The Greenwood Mall hero).

Now before you say "Yes I'm all for that but we need to be political too" consider this. We are all limited on time. We are all limited on money. How do we spend those resources? Do we spent it organizing politically? Or do we spend it organizing parallel non-governmental groups that focus on solving problems in our society outside the realm of government? Here's what I mean. Take the Oathkeepers. When they were protecting black owned shops from rioters in Ferguson, nobody could say anything against them.

.

But then they decided to get "political." They decided to help "stop the steal" on January 6th. And now their whole organization is basically destroyed. I know many hear romanticize January 6th. I don't think you do (correct me if I'm wrong). But to me it shows the epitome of the insanity of believing in a government and/or political "solution" to our problems. The next logical step for the Oathkeepers would have been to join up with some of the newly formed black gun owner organizations. Not the Marxists idiots, but the genuine "I want to protect my community" types. This is where I disagree with @Anti Federalist and @TheTexan. I don't think that freedom is unpopular. I think freedom keeps getting tarred and feathered by association with people who don't really believe in freedom. I think of all of the good people who's lives are ruined by getting involved in the Jan 6th circle jerk for a president that threw rocks and then hid his hands. Dr. Simone Gold, ruined. Stewart Rhodes. Ruined. Joseph Biggs. Ruined. Enrique Tarrio. Ruined. Ashley Babbitt. Dead. For what?

I've heard the saying "Don't let it be said that we did nothing." I would change that to say "Don't let it be said that we did nothing of lasting value."

[acptulsa]

Supposedly libertarian Tucker Carlson (he was going to introduce Ron Paul remember?) was like "Defund the police? That's crazy!!!!" But you had like 40+ cops in Uvalde Texas milling around in the hallway while children were being slaughtered all decked out in their tactical gear, their bullet proof vests, riot shields etc. . And just weeks later a civilian with nothing but a handgun took out an active shooter armed with an AR-15 firing only 10 shots, 8 of them hit their mark. No riot gear. Not ballistic shields. No tactical gear. No police chief on the phone trying to negotiate with the killer. 15 seconds and the threat was neutralized versus 1 hour and 45 minutes of....well....nothing.

The real kicker is that it was worse than nothing. It was 100 minutes of, "If you go try to save your own child from getting shot, we'll shoot you."

A lot worse.

[TheTexan]

I think of all of the good people who's lives are ruined by getting involved in the Jan 6th circle jerk for a president that threw rocks and then hid his hands. Dr. Simone Gold, ruined. Stewart Rhodes. Ruined. Joseph Biggs. Ruined. Enrique Tarrio. Ruined. Ashley Babbitt. Dead. For what?

For what? A valuable lesson.

I think it opened up a lot of people's eyes exactly how "they" see "us".

Which is the first lesson in the curriculum, of finding a productive way forward.

[ClaytonB]

There's no such thing as an anarchy. There's always a state.

"A State" is just a mental fiction, like "Germany", "tennis club", "General Motors" or any other such ephemeral aggregate formed from human cooperation. All people and all organizations have always been and always will be in a state of anarchy in the sense that nobody can ever truly completely stop acting in their own interests, however slightly.

"The State" is perhaps better called slavery, because that is what we are really talking about. And yes, there has always been slavery and there always will be slavery. There is more slavery today than there has ever been in human history. Anarchy can also just be called freedom (the absence of slavery) and it is a condition that also always exists, from the standpoint of physical causality. No one but me causes my arms to move, whether I live under capitalism or communism. But that minimal degree of physical anarchy is obviously not satisfactory. What we seek is general freedom, which is also the general absence of slavery. It is true that general freedom is not the default -- general slavery is the default. But it is equally true that, no matter how hard the slaver tries to eliminate all freedom and convert his human subjects into mechanical robots, he can never succeed. And that is the sense in which anarchy is inevitable and ineradicable. Freedom is a delicate flower that is easily tramped by human systems of slavery, whether ancient or modern, but when it comes down to a cosmic contest between freedom and slavery, freedom is ultimately revealed to be the real power. Slavery is impotence-incarnate.

How are you going to defend your anarchy from invaders?

"Defend your anarchy" is a category error. You're thinking of anarchy as some kind of zen buddhist koan -- a State consisting of No State. No, the condition of anarchy is pervasive. You already have all the freedoms you choose to exercise. Even if you had been born in Iran or North Korea, you would have all the freedoms you choose to exercise. If you are born here or there, your environment might be filled with more threats or fewer threats. But the number of choices available to you remain, all things considered, roughly the same. The rising communist party star in North Korea is not doing anything fundamentally different from the rising Wall Street entrepreneur in respect to how he is interacting with the world as it presents itself to him. Obviously, the outcomes to the rest of society are very different. But the ambitious under tyranny or freedom will find the outlet for their ambition. And so on for all types of people. So it's a mistake to think of anarchy as something that only exists when some kind of "sacred space" is carved out for it. It's true that general freedom cannot exist without this kind of sacred space where it is cherished and preserved. But the brute fact of human choice does not disappear when general freedom is trampled over by slavery. All that really changes are the opportunities that face those who are born into that condition. A slave-revolt is only called that if they lose. Otherwise, it's called the birth of a new nation. It's all in how you look at it.

[ClaytonB]

Sure minarchists want 'better" government solutions. But still, government solutions.

Correct.

Now before you say "Yes I'm all for that but we need to be political too" consider this. We are all limited on time. We are all limited on money. How do we spend those resources? Do we spent it organizing politically? Or do we spend it organizing parallel non-governmental groups that focus on solving problems in our society outside the realm of government?

We can, in fact, do both. So far, the Mises Caucus is an example of what I think a true grassroots political movement looks like. It is political. They have to think about things like "public perception", "electability", "zeitgeist", "political scenario" and so on. They have to think about things like infiltration, sabotage, vote-fraud, gerrymandering, etc. etc. All of that is the proper domain of politics and there is nothing inherently crooked about these things, although they can be extremely ugly in many cases. They are simply a byproduct of the complexity of human interactions in the political sphere. Somebody who cares about freedom needs to care about those things, which is one of the most important lessons that Ron Paul has taught us. Nobody likes to clean the bathroom... but if we desire to see real change for freedom somebody in the liberty movement has to get on their knees and scrub the bathroom floor.

But we also need to continue building alternatives to government services that set locals free from dependence on the good ol' boys club in the central government. We need to make power more distributed... a gun-turret on every roof, metaphorically-speaking. Tyranny flourishes in a security vacuum. The more we allow ourselves to be lulled into that security vacuum (e.g. a popular gun-grab), the easier it is for the tyrants to move their agenda forward. But it isn't just security services that they have monopolized -- the modern omnipotent government has monopolized virtually every industry of any import, specifically to prevent popular resistance against its agenda. So, the more energy-independence that each US state has, the better. The more transport-infrastructure independence, the better. The more communication infrastructure independence, the better. The more education-independence, the better. And so on, and so forth, along the entire spectrum of commercial production, and even cultural activity.

The more independent every local polity within the United States is, the harder it will be for the globalists to impose their agenda... and the easier it will be for a grassroots freedom movement to take root across the whole country. So, these two lines of action dovetail and can reinforce each other. It's not an "either-or", it's a "both-and"...

[Matt Collins]

Has the kind of government you just described ever been tried anywhere?

Yes, 1780 thru about 1860. And in various (declining) degrees since then.

[Matt Collins]

The State, by virtue of its monopoly on violence, necessarily becomes the one and only game in town for predators.

This is absolutely false. There are many predators outside of the government. And this is what anarchy doesn't take into account.

So, anarchy not only takes into account human nature, it is the inevitable conclusion of seriously accounting for human nature.

Not at all.

Anarchy = democracy = mob rule.

How are you going to defend your anarchy from invaders?

And this is exactly the crux of the issue. Anarchists fail to account for aggressive and predatory humans.

[Matt Collins]

The problem with the minarchist mindset is that it keeps people focused on government solutions rather than solutions.

As a minacrhist, I don't want the government solving anything, but I also realize that we will turn in to mob rule if there isn't some sort of government in place.

Now before you say "Yes I'm all for that but we need to be political too" consider this. We are all limited on time. We are all limited on money. How do we spend those resources? Do we spent it organizing politically? Or do we spend it organizing parallel non-governmental groups that focus on solving problems in our society outside the realm of government? Here's what I mean. Take the Oathkeepers. When they were protecting black owned shops from rioters in Ferguson, nobody could say anything against them.

So the reality is that police can usually not protect people or property as much as they can show up after the fact and take a report.

Government's job isn't protection and keeping us safe, as much as it is to provide justice after the fact.

[Occam's Banana]

There's no such thing as an anarchy. There's always a state. [...]

It depends on how you define "state". [...]

Exactly so. This is why I no longer waste any time arguing over this issue. Definitional fiat is the prerogative of every discussant - and so sooner or later (usually sooner), you get to a point where one side or the other (or both) simply defines away the possibility of the other and summarily declares victory.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: if a fully and genuinely libertarian polity is ever actually achieved, one thing is pretty much absolutely certain - anarchists and minarchists will immediately fall to pissing at each other over whether it is "really" an anarchy or a minarchy.

(This is why I am only half-joking when I describe my own position on the issue as "post-anarcho-warlordist".)

[jmdrake]

As a minacrhist, I don't want the government solving anything, but I also realize that we will turn in to mob rule if there isn't some sort of government in place.

You don't want the government solving any problem except....

So the reality is that police can usually not protect people or property as much as they can show up after the fact and take a report.

Government's job isn't protection and keeping us safe, as much as it is to provide justice after the fact.

You want the government providing "justice" after the fact. Whether you realize it or not or whether you want to admit it or not the "lack of justice" that you believe will exist without government is the problem that you want government to solve. I've practiced enough law to know that the government does a piss poor job administering justice after the fact and at times they are the cause of the injustice.

[jmdrake]

For what? A valuable lesson.

I think it opened up a lot of people's eyes exactly how "they" see "us".

Which is the first lesson in the curriculum, of finding a productive way forward.

Did it open the eyes to many of the people that Trump didn't help after the fact as to how he sees them? I think not.

[ClaytonB]

This is absolutely false. There are many predators outside of the government.

The smaller the government, yes. But the maximal State, the omnipotent State, is indeed the uni-predator. It has to be, because if it were not, then some John somewhere is making profit off a prostitute without paying taxes to the omni-John. And that means that some other State, less scrupulous than this State, could be generating higher tax-revenues and, very shortly, it would have the funds to raise a larger army and then vanquish the sissy-State who lets little nobody Johns pimp out their prostitutes without giving a cut to the Man. Once you build a State, you have to keep building higher than anybody else's State, or you will be demolished by the competition just as you have been demolishing everybody around you. Imperial slavery.

And this is what anarchy doesn't take into account.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first objection handled in any of the writings of Rothbard, Nozick, Spooner, etc. is the very objection you mention here because it is the most obvious objection. Here's an article from Mises.org specifically titled, But wouldn't warlords take over?

Anarchy = democracy = mob rule.

That's a specious equality. Corrected version:

Democracy = mob rule = running violence in the streets which is what people generally mean by the word "anarchy". But this last meaning is specifically excluded by anarchist philosophers because we're not talking about running violence in the streets, we're talking about "absence of a State" which is the etymological meaning of "an-archy": "No State". Most people consider it obvious that the absence of a State will immediately and inevitably result in running violence in the streets, but that's the whole point in contention.

And this is exactly the crux of the issue. Anarchists fail to account for aggressive and predatory humans.

False. Anarchism is the only logical conclusion when you take into account the fact that many humans are aggressive and predatory. These crooks are attracted to power whatever form it takes because they instinctively understand that power is what facilitates crime. A child cannot steal my wallet. Even if he tried, I would just stiff-arm him. But a few hood-rats with knives, however, could easily separate me from my wallet, especially if they caught me by surprise. The government is simply the most excellent muggers-knife. It is the muggers-knife par excellence. Only idiot crooks fail to realize that obvious truth and end up in the back seat of a police-car instead of the front seat.



The whole talk (worthwhile for any lurkers who would like to learn more):

[TheTexan]

Did it open the eyes to many of the people that Trump didn't help after the fact as to how he sees them? I think not.

I think you underestimate how many people feel like Trump failed those people. (and not for the reasons the msm would have you believe)

[Invisible Man]

Militaries have never existed?

Yes they have. But not the way you described.

States do not come about by groups of people who were living in statelessness banding together with a common goal of providing common defense in a Gilligan's Island scenario or something like that. They come about by one group of people militarily conquering another and subjugating them to their rule.

I agree with most of the above but you're missing the most important point. You can affirm all day long that it's wrong to conquer people but that won't stop it.

Of course you won't stop it. That's a hopeless goal. The goal of limiting the state to some kind of benevolent night watchman with strictly limited powers is equally hopeless. So I don't really see how pointing to the futility of option A counts as an argument in favor of supporting the equally futile option B.

Anarchy is an ideal, not a plan to implement. But there are important reasons for having ideals. It makes no sense to reply to someone who asserts that murder is wrong with the retort that they're a utopian dreamer and they should stop saying that murder is wrong because we'll never eliminate all murder, and replace their ideal with some more realistic rule about how some amount of murder is just right and if the number drops below that we'll have too little murder.

[Invisible Man]

There's no such thing as an anarchy. There's always a state. It's the nature of force.

If we allow for the term "state" to include interactions on the micro-level, such that a mugger in a dark alley counts as the state in that scenario, then you are correct. There always have been and always will be such things. I don't oppose using the word "state" that way, since the alternative requires arbitrarily drawing the line of how big something has to be to count as a state.

But it's safe to say that in most usage of the word "state," whether that be in common parlance or technical jargon, it does not include interactions that are only on that micro-localized level, but only institutions that cover larger space, last for longer times, and directly affect more people. And if we restrict ourselves to this more typical usage of the word, then most of the time that humans have walked on the earth they did so in anarchy.

[Matt Collins]

The smaller the government, yes. But the maximal State, the omnipotent State, is indeed the uni-predator. It has to be, because if it were not, then some John somewhere is making profit off a prostitute without paying taxes to the omni-John. And that means that some other State, less scrupulous than this State, could be generating higher tax-revenues and, very shortly, it would have the funds to raise a larger army and then vanquish the sissy-State who lets little nobody Johns pimp out their prostitutes without giving a cut to the Man. Once you build a State, you have to keep building higher than anybody else's State, or you will be demolished by the competition just as you have been demolishing everybody around you. Imperial slavery.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but the first objection handled in any of the writings of Rothbard, Nozick, Spooner, etc. is the very objection you mention here because it is the most obvious objection. Here's an article from Mises.org specifically titled, But wouldn't warlords take over?



That's a specious equality. Corrected version:

Democracy = mob rule = running violence in the streets which is what people generally mean by the word "anarchy". But this last meaning is specifically excluded by anarchist philosophers because we're not talking about running violence in the streets, we're talking about "absence of a State" which is the etymological meaning of "an-archy": "No State". Most people consider it obvious that the absence of a State will immediately and inevitably result in running violence in the streets, but that's the whole point in contention.



False. Anarchism is the only logical conclusion when you take into account the fact that many humans are aggressive and predatory. These crooks are attracted to power whatever form it takes because they instinctively understand that power is what facilitates crime. A child cannot steal my wallet. Even if he tried, I would just stiff-arm him. But a few hood-rats with knives, however, could easily separate me from my wallet, especially if they caught me by surprise. The government is simply the most excellent muggers-knife. It is the muggers-knife par excellence. Only idiot crooks fail to realize that obvious truth and end up in the back seat of a police-car instead of the front seat.

You're delusional and don't grasp reality.

Governments are bad, fundamentally, but so far they are the best method for providing justice and securing individual rights that humans have come up with.... but they need to be kept as small and limited as possible, because they are bad. There is no perfect systems, just ones that are less bad than others.

[Matt Collins]

You want the government providing "justice" after the fact. Whether you realize it or not or whether you want to admit it or not the "lack of justice" that you believe will exist without government is the problem that you want government to solve. I've practiced enough law to know that the government does a piss poor job administering justice after the fact and at times they are the cause of the injustice.

Oh absolutely the government is bad at it. It is bad at everything, except for stealing and killing. But there is no other entity that can provide justice, or at least attempt to provide any semblance of it.

[ClaytonB]

You're delusional and don't grasp reality.

Even if that were true, it's not an argument.

Governments are bad, fundamentally, but so far they are the best method for providing justice and securing individual rights

This is the old "lesser of N evils" argument. And it's a fallacy. Utilitarianism, in short. Suppose that the best method we have found, so far, to prevent catastrophic famine, is to sacrifice one baby on the altar of Molech on the spring equinox each year. Every year a baby has been sacrificed, there has been no famine, and every year a baby was not sacrificed, there was a famine... for as far back as memory stretches. So, should we sacrifice another baby this year? Obviously, the answer is no. Even if there really were some cosmic force that would punish us with famine for refusing to sacrifice a baby to Molech on the spring equinox, we should not comply because such an act is abhorrent, in itself. In the same way, the idea that "oppressive government [supposedly] works, sort-of" is not a moral justification for it. Committing a certain amount of crime in order to "preserve the general good" is still... criminal.

but they need to be kept as small and limited as possible, because they are bad.

You're on the right path. Just keep going. You'll arrive at your destination eventually...

There is no perfect systems, just ones that are less bad than others.

"Systems" are irrelevant. I don't care about the "system", what I care about are specific torts. If you smash the windows of my car, I don't give a damn what "system" you're part of. I want you to pay for the damage you did: pay to have the car cleaned, to have new windows mounted and for any transportation or other costs incurred as a byproduct of your act of vandalism (or recklessness or negligence, as the case may be.) That is the selfsame standard that anarchism applies to any government. I don't care if your government makes its decisions by majority-vote, super-majority vote, consensus vote or by a dictator. How your "system" works is entirely uninteresting to me, what is interesting to me is how your government's agents are going to pay for the crimes they commit while "punishing" people for breaking their "laws" (that is, making non-crimes among the people into crimes), or be held as scofflaws for making themselves accomplice to other private criminals (making crimes into non-crimes). The rest of it is just political theater, as far as I am concerned.

When the State is held to the standard of real law (natural law, common law, law-as-such), it instantly evaporates because it is a gigantic nothing. The State can only exist in a condition of de facto social anarchy. The State is the ultimate manifestation and agent of anarchy. It is the very thing that it warns us we must be protected against. It is the very criminal who is telling us, "You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall." No, colonel, you're a low-down good-for-nothing crook and all your badges, medals, uniforms and rank-insignias only make your crime that much more repugnant. That is what we (philosophical anarchists) are talking about when we talk about "private law", natural law, common law, etc. You can't get a free-pass to smash people's windows by waving a magical badge or fancy type-written piece of paper at them. Sorcery is bull$#@!. That's not how reality works.