As Murray Rothbard put it in his marvelous article The Anatomy of the State, "Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind..." As long as you reside on Earth, you don't have a choice to live outside of government rulers. Certainly you can claim: "well, my taxes are currently low" or "well, they only stick their hands down my pants at airports" or "well, they haven't taken my children away from me yet as I'm still married" or "well, I've never said anything that the government hasn't liked so they haven't yet issued an injunction against my speech." But, as the Chinese proverb goes, the beginning of wisdom is to call things their right names. All of those claims still fall within the realm of initiating force against innocent victims. Intellectuals generally regard the state as a foregone conclusion.

Some ask: "But how will we stay safe from thugs, or resolve disputes?" There isn't any natural law that says security or dispute resolution can only be provided by government. As the adage goes, people do not walk barefoot because there aren't any government shoe factories. There also isn't any natural law that says security or dispute resolution services (e.g., insurance companies) wouldn't be available in abundance in an anarchistic society. Division of labor is key - specialization applies to every other service provided in the marketplace. Why not security and dispute resolution? What is it that you dislike about anarchy? What are the "goals of mankind?"

FTA:

Anarchy is messed up. There are many different factions claiming to be anarchists and most don't seem to have a clue as to what they are talking about. Additionally, far too many incorrectly associate the word anarchist either with chaos or violent revolutionaries. So I felt it important to set the record straight.

Anarchism derives from the Greek word anarchos, meaning "without rulers," and "rulers" is meant to indicate those in public office (i.e., government). In other words, anarchy means the "absence of government." It's not more complicated than that. I'm not sure how so many so-called anarchists swayed from the original meaning of the definition, but it's likely because they took the basic definition and then applied their own suppositions. Anarchy does not mean chaos; it does not mean lack of organization or hierarchy; it does not mean a lack of rules; it does not mean that no one has authority; it does not mean that wrong-doers won't be punished for immoral actions..." It means no government. Simple. Period. End of story... Philosophically, I think that the only legitimate social system is one where people freely and voluntarily choose to interact and assent to the rules under which they want to live.

Will real anarchists please step forward?

DISCUSS!

Original posting by Braincrave Second Life staff on Feb 3, 2011 at http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=456