A
statist asked someone else this question:
"Explain how anarchy will be maintained and nobody will make governments, absent compulsion. Hint: You can't. And that's the crux for why anarchism is utopian thinking. It just magically assumes everyone will agree." (profanity edited out)
That's how statists, conditioned to think only inside the coercive government box, look at the world. It's tragic and sick. And there's
that misguided "Utopian" claim again.
I've seen variations of this same question many times over the years, and I have addressed them when I encountered them. I guess it's time to address this here (if I haven't already).
Once you realize
governments are simply criminal gangs, the question- and the
solution- are easier to understand. The veil of legitimacy doesn't change their true nature even a little.
Anarchy doesn't need to be "maintained", at least not in the sense the statist insists. It
can't be. It simply
is. Already. Trying to "maintain" something in this sense means to govern it. If you try to govern anarchy, you're doing it wrong. "
F'ing for virginity", as they say.
Bad people will always try to establish governments, just like bad people murder, rape, kidnap, steal, and trespass. Bad people do bad things, and they won't stop just because you point out that they have no right to do those things. You will have to stop them. It's your responsibility.
The solution is self-defense from ALL
archators. With the specific
evil of "making" a government, you have to nip it in the bud before it grows too large to decisively defeat. This was
our forbears' mistake, and it's too late to address the problem as
they should have done. But there's
still a way.
Or two.
Theirs is a mistake that needs to be recorded and
remembered, so it is never repeated. Crush any newborn government
in its crib before it is strong enough to fight back and win. It's your responsibility, and responsibility is half of
liberty.
Statists will complain. They'll try to recategorize self-defense as "compulsion" because they are liars. They want to be safe while violating
society. That's not
my problem.
Just like the person who complained to me that if I didn't allow her to control me, that meant I was controlling her by taking away her ability to control me. Nope. That's a lie, and I'm not buying it.
No one has a right to govern anyone but himself, and anyone who
tries is a threat to life, liberty, and property, and fighting back-
to the death- is a perfectly legitimate response to this type of criminal. It's also perfectly acceptable to join together with others,
voluntarily, for defense- as long as there's no penalty for opting out and the defense is not
funded through theft.
Here's one of the best parts: not everyone
has to agree. But those who
don't agree to refrain from violating life, liberty, or property- using
any justification- will know they are doing something the rest of us recognize they have no right to do, and that their targets have the right to fight back with whatever amount of force it takes. They are just like the
freelance criminals of the government era. "Force" isn't the problem; "
initiation of force" is. Establishing a government is an initiation of force; fighting back is defensive force.
The best thing about
libertarianism, and by extension, anarchy, is that it doesn't rely on "everyone" agreeing. The bad guys have been told how we will respond if they try to violate us. It's their choice to either live in peace or
try to cheat to get their way. Without a strong government protecting them from their victims, the ones who don't learn to get along will Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool. Their choice; their consequences.
