Source: Wikipedia
Dr. Per Bylund does a great job of explaining the reasons why an anarchist society would work, and why we would want to swap to an anarchist society in favor of our current circumstances. Many of the arguments against anarchism are rooted in a flaw logic, one that assumes law is the reason we do not steal and kill our fellow countrymen. Those in favor of a government, also tend to ignore the fact that these governments use the armed forces to kill soldiers of other countries in the name of political interests, while ironically operating under the Department of Defense. Further, as Dr. Per Bylund explains, those at the top of the government have the greatest freedom to abuse the law. Operating under an anarchist system, people would be afforded greater personal freedom and greater economic freedom, while disabling the ruling party from being able to continue to abuse their position and take advantage of their fellow citizens.
The arguments against anarchy tend to be biased in that they assume law is the reason we don’t commit crimes and don’t plunder from others. In reality, these things happen plenty in societies where law is present, and living in an anarchist society would not have a substantial impact on the crime rate or amount of illegal activity. If anything, it could be argued that crimes like burglary and theft would decrease, as the removal of the government would enable more people to live comfortable lives within their means. The lack of government restriction would enable the economy to naturally grow which would in turn decrease the number of people stuck in the so-called poverty trap. It has long been observed that there is at least a generally substantial link between poverty rates and violent crime rates, so despite the idea of anarchy usually stirring thoughts of violent mobs it should in reality placate the general public.
The United States has invaded over ten countries covertly in the name of CIA backed government overthrows, and those are just the covert invasions backed by the CIA. Since World War II, the US has invaded dozens of countries in the name of terrorist suppression, peacekeeping, or military support. It can be argued that these invasions were well intentioned, few of them were necessary by any stretch of the word. Many of these invasions were carried out in order to try and stamp out the spread of communism in other countries, others were carried out to save a small number of U.S. citizens located in the country during a time of turmoil. Regardless, they all resulted in the United States military being used overseas for essentially no benefit to the average American. The lives of soldiers were risked or lost, and enemy combatants killed, in the name of politics. This simply is not what an alleged Department of Defense should be doing. Instead it would be much more effective for Americans to individually defend themselves as is described by Dr. Per Bylund. Each person would be armed, and as a result it would be incredibly hard for a country wishing to attack and occupy America to do so, the deterrent being so strong that it is unlikely any of these people would actually ever have to defend their home from a foreign invasion.
Additionally, the government mostly serves to stifle true economic growth through unrestrained capitalism. The regulations imposed by the government only limit the economic growth that a nation is capable of by enabling competitors to have a level of complacency, as the regulation halts unrestrained competition. This mostly serves to disservice the consumer, by providing them with slower innovation and development than would otherwise exist under an unrestrained market. An anarchist system would mean that producers would have to compete at the highest level they are capable of to ensure that they grab the most market share they can, which in turn provides the customer with the product that will most suit their wants and needs as that is the product that would net the most market share for the producer.
However, I do feel that certain arms of the government would need to be left intact in order to preserve things like the national parks. There are a great deal of people that litter as well as an impactful number of people that don’t restrain themselves from damaging the environment through other means such as taking “souvenirs” or interacting with the wildlife. Without a private investor to protect these lands, they would be subject to the whims of any visitors. People would be able to put up advertisements on the sequoias of the Redwood National Park for example. The value of nature cannot be understated either, as it is a necessary component for maintaining our physical and mental health. Bearing that in mind I feel there must be some governing body left in place to protect these lands and ensure that they remain as natural as possible.