Anarchism has failed to supply an adequate reason for abolishing the state.

Nevertheless, you have offered an argument that I have anticipated, so let's start the dismantlement: ==================== Argument for Anarchism - Rudimentary organization ==================== "Now, the appeal of government-free society is not really about there being no government. It is no established government. It is a state in which all law is upheld by the people in the state without obligation. " ----> Yeah, don't get me wrong. I agree that an anarchistic society can develop some sort of hierarchy of power (that would naturally form between human groups given our social nature); obviously I am referring to political powers as being absent. "Now, in your argument, you said that crime will skyrocket. Do you believe that the owners of property will not protect it? . . . The owners or property protect it and gang together. Police and citizens will work hand in hand to protect each other. . . " ----> Yes, but do you truly believe that citizens will be as adept as defending themselves as a military or police force would? This is one of my main arguments against anarchy - to have security depend on the shoulders of militia and concerned citizens is a much too unstable and weak option. It is almost undeniable that an organized police force will be MUCH more effective than citizens who happen to have weapons, and what not. Take the following situation: a crime family gets quite powerful, on par with the status of Yakuza, Chinese Triads, the Mafia, etc. Given the minimum of police presence, if any at all, crime will undoubtedly run rampant. In fact, given the absence of any overarching political power with at least the capability to suppress such a crime family, as long as the crime family is stronger than any opposition then it can do whatever the hell wants. And from there on it can only get stronger, as it pulls in more resources and what not. What's interesting about anarchy is that such a position would force us likely to revert from a civilization back to more primal forms of human social formation - such as tribes, or chiefdoms. Obviously, it be much more intricate but the presence of a community will be much smaller than a state. If we take away government, then we take away it's most important job, security. ". . . , not from law saying so, but out of natural obligation. " ----> What exactly is this natural obligation? ==================== Conclusion ==================== "Anarchy is a misunderstood term, seemingly always associated with chaos and destruction. Know that the point of anarchy isn't no law, but self law. " ----> And the point to be made about self law is that it is extremely inefficient. The practical reason as to why anarchy is inadequate is because the goals it seek to achieve (unhindered freedom) can not be actualized in such a political scheme. Ironically, in fact, the complete opposite happens given that MORE crime and thus LESS freedom will arise. An anarchistic society will revert humans BACK a sociological stage of development; instead of civilizations we will come back to the stage of chiefdoms, tribes, or somewhere amongst. "For citizens to be able to govern themselves and not be told right and wrong, because they already know it. " ----> I find it not only speculative, but rather pretentious to say that everyone knows what is morally permissible and what is not.