June 20, 2026
The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security. - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
It is scarcely possible to touch on any subject, that will not suggest an allusion to some corruption in governments. - Ibid, note 24
As people age we sometimes hear them say it beats the alternative, which is usually left unsaid. It's an old joke technology aims to eliminate by treating aging as a disease and curing it.
But there's another sense in which the alternative is assumed to be far worse than the present condition. I'm referring to the type of government many people live under, which is the nation state, defined as a "political organization where the boundaries of a sovereign government align with the boundaries of a people who share a common identity."
A nation state is not the same as a state. "China, India, and Russia are all states, but each contains dozens of distinct national groups with their own languages and traditions." Whether state or nation state, the state is sovereign, not the people under its rule. Sovereignty implies the ability of the state to enforce the laws (or decrees) it imposes.
As bad as states might be - we've all been taught - it certainly beats the alternative, anarchy.
Really?
Headlines have never been favorable to the state as a form of government. Throughout history it was common for thinkers to critique government mercilessly, even if their criticisms amounted to little more than entertainment. Once the government turned to war, toleration ceased. The public for the most part expects others to make changes in government when the need arises and registers their preference at the polls when voting is allowed. Ruling elites know this and have rigged the system of state governance, whatever form it takes, to ensure the state escalates its grip over our lives no matter what degree of disaster it creates. See Katrina.
Here in the US as elsewhere, the quarrels between the political parties are mostly a distraction. Neither party would ever seriously consider doing away with the income tax or the federal reserve, for example. Doing so would starve the state, and our bipartisan overseers won't allow it. Even worse, thanks to government schools and a corrupt media, most people see nothing wrong in principle with government theft. And of those few who have heard of the federal reserve, they buy into it as an inflation fighter, rather than the source of inflation.
It is alleged that the state represents order, whereas the absence of the state releases all the evils of which man is capable, producing dog-eat-dog chaos. Since states have become our schoolteachers the idea of government without the state is simply not discussed.
According to most dictionaries, synonyms for anarchy include lawlessness, disruption, turmoil, disorganization, and disintegration. Such terms also describe countries being bombed back to the stone age, such as those in the Middle East where "righteous" states have intervened to eradicate evil or "defend the freedom" of their clueless citizens thousands of miles away.
Anarchists didn't write anarchy's press releases. Describing anarchy as chaos comes from state-friendly sources. According to LegalClarity.org,
Anarchy, in political philosophy, describes societies that organize themselves without a centralized government or top-down authority. The word often conjures images of chaos, but the historical record tells a different story: dozens of communities across centuries have run their affairs through assemblies, elected councils, and mutual agreements rather than through a permanent ruling class. Some lasted decades, others only weeks, but each offers a concrete picture of how people coordinate when nobody sits at the top of the hierarchy.
Is it possible states create the conditions associated with anarchy?
According to economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War, three trillion dollars is a moderate estimate for the projected total cost of the Iraq invasion. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, says "Our calculations are based on conservative assumptionsNeedless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq." Since the invasion was based on lies and without a declaration of war, every Iraqi life lost amounts to murder. But to the government and media the war was a mistake, nothing more, like getting off at the wrong exit.
And the cost of rebuilding what the state destroyed ? According to the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) as reported in lets-rebuild.com,
the U. S. has invested over $60 billion in Iraq, a sum exceeding the funds allocated for rebuilding post-World War II Germany. Reporting shows that the reconstruction initiative has achieved little, culminating in a final report by SIGIR that highlighted the inefficiency of these efforts.
And none of the money the US spent was the state's to begin with. It was loot stolen from hapless Americans. Any reasonable account of the cost should also include the infringements on liberty that monsters such as the Department of Homeland Security and Patriot Act impose.
Given what the US state and its coalition partners have done to Iraq, to Iraqis, to American military personnel, to the cultural climate of peace and liberty that makes prosperity possible, it's hard to imagine a stateless America would be even worse.
Keep in mind that it wasn't anarchy that produced the massive death and devastation of the two world wars, or the numerous illegal regime change operations carried out by US intelligence agents. Neither Stalin, Hitler, nor Mao are remembered as anarchists, though Mao, the number one murderer, gets off with having only made a "mistake" in some quarters. It wasn't anarchists who built atomic bombs. It wasn't anarchists who dropped them on civilian populations. Nor is President Trump considered an anarchist for attacking Iran on February 28.
Father Abraham, Wilson, and FDR are not renown for their anarchist views. Through the state they had the means to go to war while forcing others to do the killing and dying. Through the state they had the propaganda tools and the arms to keep most of the public compliant. Through the state they had the means to steal wealth from their citizens to pay for it. Even today, with their crimes detailed online, they remain among the "great" in American history because of a credulous public that has been indoctrinated from an early age.
Better than the alternative?