Dismantling the Childish Belief That "Government Is Necessary"

For the purposes of this short exercise, here are the operational definitions:

Government - An arbitrarily established, systematic monopoly on force against both the violent and non-violent alike in a given geographical region.

Anarchism - Lack of a government.

Violence - The non-self-defensive physical violation (or threat thereof) of another individual's body or property.

*******

What Is Statism?

Statism, or the belief in the necessity of government, is not a logical position to take. It is a dogmatic, religious belief.

The state — or government (a collection of individual humans just like you and I) — systematically applies force and violence to the non-violent to achieve goals.

Examples:

• Taxation - Funds that are taken from the non-violent under threat of force and violence.

• Citizenship - A claim of legal ownership and jurisdiction over an infant's body simply due to the geographical location at which he or she emerged from the womb. This infant must now, non-contractually, exercise allegiance to a nation-state it knows nothing about.

• War - The idea that a conflict between strangers must necessarily involve others to sacrifice themselves to kill and be killed, even if those made to be involved have no personal issue with those they are sent to kill, and who are sent to kill them.

• Democracy - The idea that if 51% of a crowd chooses a set of rules to be enforced, the minority group must accept and obey those rules, or be put into cages if they do not. Further, the idea that objection to rules must be done by way of prescribed institutions created by the same groups that made the objectionable rules in the first place.

So, we have a collection of humans that arbitrarily set themselves above the other humans, affording themselves greater rights with no sound logical justification for doing so.

The claimed jurisdiction over the massive continents and chunks of land on this planet is justified merely by say so, and not by a logical conception of property, which can be applied equally to all individuals, regardless of title.

Instead of the property norm being based on the individual's body, and the resources that that body legitimately acquires. "Property" to the state, is merely whatever the state (a small group of humans) arbitrarily claims to own, by putting some ink on paper, and then backing up that ink with violence and threats. It should go without saying that this is a barbaric way to exist, and not a civilized practice.

Common Objections to Anarchy, Refuted:

"Well, what is your suggestion for a better system?"

Irrelevant. The immorality of the current system does not cease to exist or change because I do or do not provide an alternative idea. This is akin to maintaining that the chattel slavery of the past should not have been abolished until farmers figured out how to better pick the cotton. Irrelevant.

"Society will fall apart if nobody pays taxes."

Even though this can be demonstrated as false with historical examples, logically and morally speaking, it doesn't even matter.

What you are saying is that YOU wouldn't pay for things voluntarily if YOU didn't have to. Or, you are saying that ONLY YOU would pay, and everyone else would cease to contribute to society. As stated, real life simply does not bear this out (look around at your local communities and the families around you, and small businesses), but if it did, that would still only mean humans are completely immoral, incapable of existing in a sustained fashion, and if that were the case, how then could they ever be expected to participate responsibly and reasonably in the government seats of power you advocate?

"There has to be order!"

Anarchy simply means the lack of a ruler, not"lack of order" or privately, consensually created policies based on self-ownership.

Societies and cultures — even quite complex and advanced ones — have already existed throughout history and continue to exist in various degrees of anarchy. From the elementary school playground where children organize a baseball game without teachers, to incredibly complex smart contracts on a crypto blockchain managing millions of dollars of value without oversight, humans wish to organize to benefit themselves, and violence is costly to this organization.

Even the government uses anarchy. Nobody is overseeing those at the very top, who ultimately make the rules. They use anarchy to achieve their evil. We can use it to achieve our good. Rules must exist to protect property rights, but government makes arbitrary rules which violate people systematically, not based on property rights that come from self-ownership. This is a huge difference.

"Who will build the roads?"

The same people and companies capable of doing so now, and that already do.

"That sounds too complicated."

Have a look at international business relationships, legal agreements, city planning and infrastructure as they exist now. The complexity is mind-boggling. Assuming the knowledge and ability to organize and do these things is dependent on the existence of a centralized, violent nation-state is to assume that humans are hopelessly violent, and that those humans collectively forming the government are somehow super-human and non-violent. This is nonsensical.

"Who will protect us?"

You, and private companies hired by individuals or communities of individuals to do so. See one way this is possible here. Another here. Another here. Police now are not legally obligated to protect you. And they often suffer no market consequences for providing poor and even deadly "service."

"But, but, but..."

No matter how many objections you come up with, claiming ownership over the body over another non-violent human individual, and the fruits of the labor of that individual's body, is an open advocation of slavery. The end. Full stop.