Anarchy

Thoughtful people who are concerned with survival in a dangerous world recognize that chances of survival are better when they cooperate with other people. This leads to bands, caravans, villages, and larger organizations.

When an organization already exists for mutual benefit, it's natural for some people to view it as a resource to be exploited. They want to enjoy its advantages without contributing their share. They may not be complete freeloaders but simply trying to maximize their own benefit and minimize their costs. To counteract this natural tendency, societies have for centuries designated judges and police to enforce their rules.

I think that anarchists, especially those living in cities, have an irrational desire for total disorder. If lack of government is what they want, there are plenty of places inside and outside the country where they can go and not be bothered by any authorities. They are free to choose one and go there.

Yet many anarchists stay in cities. Why do anarchists choose to live within the confines of the most successful social organizations in history? Why do anarchists choose to stay in cities - places that have so many rules? If freedom from authority is what they wish for, why don't they venture out of the cities and make the wilderness their home? Or at least rural areas where there are fewer people and fewer rules?

Cities are convenient places to find shelter, food, and social experience. In the wilderness, the anarchist would have to work much harder to obtain these.

If government were abolished and everyone lived in anarchy, then people who who would invest their assets to build something of value would always incur an additional cost for security. Anything that is built would need to be secured against other people. For example, a farmer who plants crops needs to protect them from looters; a blacksmith who creates tools needs to protect them from looters; a performer needs to protect the stage from drunks and violent critics. These security tasks require cooperation among people. It would be tedious to negotiate the terms of the cooperation every day, so the cooperation will naturally lead to a standing agreement among the parties, thereby creating an organizational structure and associated rules.

Societies emerge naturally out of the mutual cooperation and agreement of their founders because they are beneficial. Children born into societies learn the rules and are expected to follow them as long as they are part of those societies.

I think in a free country it is critical for people to be able to move freely so they can choose to live in a society that is a good fit for them, or choose to eschew society and live alone somewhere rural or wild and avoid contact with other people.

It's alright to talk about revolution against a government that oppresses its people, because as the Founders of the United States wrote, the government exists to uphold individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But any anarchist who advocates revolution for the sake of eliminating government altogether is a hypocrite, because that would be taking away choice from other people who want a government to uphold their rights. For that reason, people who understand the value of government will always be opposed to the anarchists.

The anarchist has only one rational move: relocate to an area where contact with other people would be rare, and thus achieve a very high degree of personal freedom. Even the anarchist can rely on government to uphold his or her rights, because without a government to monopolize violence anyone with a weapon can attempt to become a little dictator, which makes for a dangerous wilderness.