A common anti-anti-state position is that if the state disappears then criminals would run wild. This argument, however, fundamentally translates to “if the state disappears then another or more states would rise again.” This argument is analogous to saying that we should not oppose rape because rape will occur anyway. However, if that position is to taken, then why oppose anything? Why does the anti-anti-statist oppose the anti-state argument if an anti-statist will argue against the state anyway?
Oh, snap.
You are right though. What they’re missing is that libertarians oppose all criminality. If we can bring down the state, surely we can bring down some small-time gang. All that matters is ideology. No ideological support, no chance of success.
The problem is that most people don’t see a state police force being as evil as rape, or even other crimes that are prosecuted.
I think a lot actually see the evil, moreso now that brutality videos are online. The actual problem is that people can’t conceive of any viable alternative. Almost every person unfamiliar with the subject of private police will say the same thing, “Rich people will just buy their way out of everything.”
edit: That is #8 on Long’s list of common objections.
While I definitely agree that anarchy would be ideal, I think it is important to realize that there will be a transition phase if the state is ever ended. Because of the state, huge imbalances have built up, and it will take time for market forces to restore equilibrium. During the transition phase, violence and exploitation may occur, and may be temporarily worse in some areas than it was under the state. Many will seek to blame anarchy for this, which could cause more people to cling to statism and slow the transition.
Of course, in the long run there’s absolutely no question that things would improve dramatically. In fact, civilization might not survive unless we manage to end the state. However, that transition phase will be a critical time, and IMO it will require the support of a much more enlightened population than we currently have if we are to persevere through it.
There are many kinds of rape, some generally more preferable than others. There are also many kinds of mammals – some (an elephant) you may oppose to being placed on top of your head, some (a hamster) you may not. Just saying.
Z.
Long needs to develop this. It is so useful. I link to it all the time, but its just a transcript of some random lecture he gave.
“Of course, in the long run there’s absolutely no question that things would improve dramatically. In fact, civilization might not survive unless we manage to end the state. However, that transition phase will be a critical time, and IMO it will require the support of a much more enlightened population than we currently have if we are to persevere through it.”
I would have to disagree with this -no transition phase that is stateless can possibly be a net-decline from a previously statist society. If the biggest engine of criminality is gone, then how can criminality be then bigger? only if the anarchy is actually chaotic -something that we know is not true. If we deregulated the farming industry, people wouldn’t be aimlessly trying to find produce or spraying corn with random pesticides, instead the producers and sellers of produce would make sure to sell high to clear the market and the consumer of the final good would probably recieve greater variety and higher quality goods. The only “chaos” that would occur are price changes and the bidding up, or down of goods which is every bit as chaotic as buying/selling a happy-meal.
Sadly, this is only the anti-anti-statist argument in the minds of the anti-statists who want an easy strawman to refute. As a non-anarchist myself, I have never once thought that this argument is sound, and I am sure that most non-anarchists here would agree with me. Surely, your refutation of this argument may serve to bolster the confidence of anarchists, but you are merely singing to the choir.
Empirical evidence, please.
Awesome.
Okay.
Which kinds of rape do you prefer more than others?
I think a lot of people are scared of the unknown. That’s why they would rather live under the state than without it.
That’s definitely a problem.
Certainly. Being anti-all criminality includes being anti-state. ← t-shirt idea. 
Ones that leave me with most organs intact or at least alive, for starters. Are you saying you’re indifferent as to which mammal is sitting on top of your head? Elephant or hamster, same diff?
Z.
Please leave the empiricism to those who actually know how to use it.
I don’t need to cite examples to prove that this is a strawman for that should be self-evident to anyone who actually wanted to have intelligent debate. The point of your example is to simply say: “Look how stupid the statists are, and look how smart we anarchists are.” Deny it if you wish, but its a blatant strawman.
Would you rather not be raped at all?
Of what and who is it a straw man?
Straw man.
Yes, wouldn’t you?
Yes. Awesome for me that I haven’t been.
Anyway, would you have no state than a little state?