A common complaint about the idea of a stateless society is, “If there was no government, the bad people could just do anything they want!!!” This argument is 50% true, 50% false, and 100% silly.
It is partly true in that, yes, if there were no ruling class, bad people would sometimes still decide to do bad things. Just like they do now. I don’t mean to alarm anyone by stating the bleeding obvious here, but even with “government”—in fact, under every “government” ever—bad people still choose to do bad things. Aside from the horrendously bad things that people do when acting on behalf of “government,” common crooks still do bad things and “break the law.” The mere existence of a ruling class doesn’t make everyone be nice. Duh.
The reason the argument is partly false is because it implies that bad people could do bad things and there would be no adverse consequences to them if they do, if not for “government.” Such an assumption is incredibly juvenile. The implication is that if all cops, soldiers, bureaucrats and politics vanished today, it wouldn’t occur to anyone else to try to defend themselves from thieves and thugs, or to try to create any sort of deterrent to those who would victimize the innocent.
Incidentally, average armed citizens are already a deterrent to crime more often than the badge-wearing doughnut-eaters.
But consider the level of intellectual laziness that the argument requires. Setting aside self-defense, it basically implies that if whoever is “protecting” them right now stops doing so, then no one else ever will. It’s like saying that if the plumber you use today retires, no one will ever fix your plumbing ever again. Do they not notice how quickly people adapt to changes? Do they really think that all those millions and millions of people who want “government” protecting them would stop wanting protection if “government” didn’t exist? “Well darn, we wish we had some way to stop the bad guys, but without politicians bossing us around, we’re all just going to passively sit here being pouty, hoping someone saves our sorry asses.”
To proclaim that “the bad guys” could do whatever they want, and get away with it without suffering any adverse consequences, implies that: 1) you wouldn’t lift a finger, even to protect yourself from thugs and thieves; 2) you wouldn’t lift a finger to defend anyone else; 3) you think no one else, on their own or as an organized group, would bother to defend themselves or others from aggressors. And frankly, that’s just stupid.
This is a fine example of statists projecting their own immaturity onto others. They think like children in a classroom, who are at a loss for what to do, and get uncomfortable and scared, whenever the teacher isn’t in the room. The thought that they would have to figure stuff out and do stuff themselves is existentially disturbing to them. And they assume everyone else must be the same way. Why else would they think, even for a moment, that without politicians, no one else would create any deterrent to the thieves and thugs of the world?
And this applies to so many other fields of thought as well. When they whine about “muh roads,” do they really think that, if not for “government,” millions of people would just sit around wishing they had some way to travel somewhere, instead of doing something about it? Do they really think that all the people who vote for “government” to care for the poor wouldn’t actually do anything themselves for the poor without a ruling class forcing them to?
The scare-tactics are downright pathetic. From the left: “If not for welfare, millions will starve to death!” From the right: “If not for the military, terrorists would take over the world!” The truth is, if not for scared, immature, irresponsible, intellectually lazy state-worshipers who won’t give up the security blanket of authoritarianism, the world would be a drastically better place.