Arguing for anarchy isn’t a good way to convince someone new to libertarian ideas.
“The measure of the state’s success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not.”
Yet another good quote. WOOT.
it’s not 100% an argument for anarchy. it could make sense to have a coercive monopoly on activities limited to those in which force is necessary (although this should be limited to non-aggression). It’s pretty hard when talking about libertarianism to avoid either minarchism or anarchism, if not outright at least by implication.
Arguing that governments are monopolies, although true, is an argument for anarchism. Obviously, the scope of the argument isn’t over whether or not government is desirable but whether or not unsatisfactory monopolies can form in a free market. In fact, arguing that government is a monopoly would be counterproductive at this point since it would indicate that monopolies can exist in a free market (which obviously isn’t the case but it would distract from the main argument).
I agree, nobody is going to buy the argument about a monopoly on defence being bad unless they’re already convinced a monoploly (or interference) in every other part of the economy is bad.