The most common, semi logical argument against anarchy is "without the government, warlords would take over". I say "semi logical" because a) the most common argument is to throw ad hominem aspersions around, and b) the logic is not as sound as it seems.
It sounds compelling, I'll wholeheartedly agree. In fact, back before I realised how viable anarchy actually is, it was the last bastion of defence I had. I believed back then that none could challenge it. The power vacuum that results from the collapse of a government leads to another government, often one that few in society actually desire. This is what I believed for years, until some other voluntaryists managed to demonstrate how my mind was unknowingly engaging in a composition fallacy & an appeal to tradition.
The power vacuum issue is a red herring. Power vacuums exist in failed states because critical services, like rights enforcement and dispute resolution, are no longer being provided. Such services would be privately provided on a free market in anarchic system of governance, hence the reason why using failed states to describe the outcome of Anarchism is a strawman argument. Power vacuums exist only when a critical service is completely removed. If the private providers of said service already exist, no vacuums can arise.
It is therefore imperative to any society attempting the voluntaryism route to have private providers ready to pick up the slack & start their own companies for individuals to contract with. Ideally, these should exist before the state is abolished. If you want to learn more about the kinds of conflict resolution solutions that could exist within a free market, this video does an excellent job of explaining those options.
The links provided in this article are reference materials only. No claim is being made to ownership of said reference material.
