Great piece as per usual!

However, want to point out one typical fallacy: "And this monopoly is rather a good thing: having several entities that can use violence on the same territory often leads to wars and insecurity, as in Mexico with the drug cartels waging a merciless war."

Monopolistic states can also lead to merciless war, see North Korea and the countless victims of inter-state war, and witness that states killed 163 million of their own people in the 20th century: https://www.owl232.net/papers/statistics.htm

You can't compare good statism with bad anarchy, you have to compare good statism with good anarchy (i.e. law and order persists, but it's not provided by the state), see e.g. work by David Friedman.

Expand full comment

What are the historical examples of good anarchism in real life ?

Expand full comment

The fallacy is to call „lack of law and order“ anarchism, when this just means law and order through non-state actors

Law without state: English common law (18-19th century) + dozens more (D. Friedman, legal systems different from our own), private commercial arbitration are commonplace

Policing without state: commonplace around the world; non-governmental law enforcement: saga period Iceland

National defense without state: complex, probably no full „private defense agencies“ example

But as you know, the modern nation state in its current form is a historical anomaly - we know that having monopoly on violence based on territory is a modern invention, so nothing to be taken for granted

Good starting point: John Hasnas, The Obviousness of Anarchy

Expand full comment