Fast forward four years to 2012 and I'm taking my first politics class in college, Introduction To Politics. My professor was serious but reasonable, and I respected him because he was knowledgeable and didn't just lecture at us. He cared about connecting with the class and trying to make the experience interesting and worthwhile. Either way, I remember during the first day, one of the unique qualities he mentioned that the "state" has is a monopoly on the use of force. This should have set off alarm bells in my head and made me question why the "government" has that monopoly, and why it is perceived to have the right to use violence against innocents who haven't harmed anyone and pose no immediate threat. However, it didn't, because I just figured that by "force", he meant force used to stop genuine criminals who violate the rights of others, and that by "monopoly", he meant that the "state" is the only organization with enough resources to prevent mass crime and punish all the individual perpetrators. I later realized that both of my assumptions were wrong, since the "state" attacks nonviolent people, and other organizations are able to provide defense.
Of course, these realizations aren't the only reason I've been a voluntaryist for more than four years, but they are important and very helpful in realistically imagining a stateless society. Now that I gave a short introduction to my history with politics, I will define what voluntaryism is: simply put, it is the stance that all human association should be voluntary. To go further, this implies that it is wrong to use coercion, or force, against someone unless it is in self-defense, as people have the right to self-determination so long as they don't harm anyone. These ideas align with the non-aggression and self-ownership principles, respectively.
At first, I had trouble understanding why these principles make the concept of "government" illegitimate. I thought that "laws" were society's way of establishing rules. Then I came across some of Larken Rose's (a fellow voluntaryist) work on YouTube, the first being a speech from his book "The Iron Web" that has apparently been titled "Message to the Voting Cattle". My literal reaction was: holy shit. It had an emotional impact on me because of how deep and powerful the speech was, so I wanted to find more of his content. At the time, since I never thought about what exactly the nature of "government" is, I didn't fully comprehend his argument that "government" doesn't even exist because it doesn't have any extra rights compared to anybody else. Conveniently, he made a video with a brief overview of his book that goes into more detail regarding this argument and others, making me question whether what I believed I knew about the "state" was accurate.
There mere fact I was encountering opposing views from multiple people related to politics from what I've always heard up until that point greatly helped me get rid of the belief that "government" and "authority" are natural and necessary, because it made me realize exactly that: that it was just a belief and not a certainty. If people stopped erroneously believing they should vote for politicians, that politicians have "authority", and that they should be forced to give over some of their money to the "government" via taxation, the institution of "government" would not be able to carry out any of its injustices (such as wars and punishing innocent people).
A huge hurdle for many is getting from: the "government" is doing some bad things so others should be in charge to: the "government" doesn't exist in the first place because it doesn't have any special rights or "authority" that allow it to force people against their will or commit other acts of evil. For example, when voluntaryists and others argue that they shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't like, a lot of people will say that they should just vote for politicians that won't force them to pay for that particular thing. Yet that doesn't address the issue of whether people should be forced to pay for things they don't like or want in the first place, or whether the "state" even has the right to do so. The answer is "no" because the money and anything else people earn legitimately is theirs, not anyone else's, meaning no one has the right to take it from them, including the people in "government".
I could use many other examples of how "government" violates human rights, but that is not the purpose of this article. In fact, I've already fulfilled its purpose by demonstrating how I became open to and later accepted voluntaryism. It's challenging for people to question things they've believed for their entire lives, but in the case of the belief in "government" and "authority", it is also liberating when they come to the conclusion that politicians don't have the right to control them.