“But there aren’t any real world examples!”

“But there aren’t any real world examples of anarchy working”

This criticism is largely missing the point of all that I talk about here. The primary argument for anarchism is the moral one, the one that deals with whether or not it is just to enslave other people via government. The argument from efficiency is secondary.

There are lots of things that might be considered ‘efficient’, but it doesn’t matter unless that solution is also just. If your grand governance scheme necessarily involved murdering 20% of society, it would be wrong no matter how ‘efficient’ your scheme is at governance. Likewise, if government by democracy means holding guns to everybodys’ heads and saying “Do this or we’ll lock you up”, then it is wrong. Even if those people don’t end up being shot/locked up, it is still wrong! Why? Because armed robbery is still robbery even if you never actually hit the other guy. The threat was still there, so clearly its wrong. Why don’t people get this?

It does not matter that I can’t name some universally preferred and better alternative to armed robbery (government), all that matters is: armed robbery is wrong, so don’t do it. Rulership of other people without their consent is wrong, so don’t do it.

“But I prefer democracy to anarchy”

It doesn’t matter what you prefer, since whether other people consent to it is not up to you. Nobody can own another person, so clearly its wrong to impose that choice on another person.

The free market is only a suggested (but highly probable) alternative to government, it doesn’t really matter what happens after government collapses, so long as self-ownership rights are respected. You can go and live in a socialist commune, you can go and start your own business, you can go off and live in the mountains. Just don’t impose democracy and governance on other people without their prior consent.