Of all the standard counter-arguments to the anarchist idea that I run into, perhaps the most frustrating is “well, yes, I concede that there are a lot of problems with political government, but how do I know that whatever you propose as a replacement won’t be even worse?”
My equally standard five-word retort — “how COULD it be worse?” — obviously bears some elaboration, but I think that the laundry list of reasons why it probably couldn’t be worse deserves a prefatory analogy:
Suppose that you have suffered, since childhood, from a chronic cough, and that as an adult you begin to notice that this cough is accompanied by the spitting up of blood.
Suppose further that all your life, all around you, you have seen your friends suffering the same kind of cough, the same bloody sputum, and eventual death.
Finally, suppose that when you consult a physician, he declines to treat the cough. “After all,” he asks, “if we get rid of the cough, who knows what will replace it? Your feet might fall off. Your head might explode. Yes, I know the cough is painful, serves no useful purpose and portends your eventual death, but the alternative might be even worse! What if curing it turns you into a brain-eating zombie? Sorry, but unless I know exactly what would follow a cure, I’m just going to keep these antibiotics locked up.”
I doubt you’d find such an answer satisfactory … but that’s exactly the answer supporters of the state offer in response to any suggestion that it may be time for their overgrown killer street gangs — “governments” — to stand down.
Political government has always been a useless, painful cancer on humanity. Its most evolved mutation, the Westphalian nation-state, has metastasized over the last 360-odd years, covering the globe with tumors of “national sovereignty” which perpetually eat away at the humanity they infest, using that humanity partially as fuel for their own growth and partially as fodder for their wars with other, similar tumors.
It’s difficult to grasp the scale of damage political government has done, but the work of Professor Emeritus RJ Rummel of the University of Hawaii — no anarchist himself — is a good place to start. In the 20th century alone, according to Rummel, “democide” (murder by government) resulted in at least 262 million human deaths.
When I call Rummel’s work a place to start, that’s exactly what I mean. His definition of “democide” encompasses only “killing on purpose.” Accidental and incidental deaths (for example, the deaths of tens of thousands of patients awaiting regulatory approval of life-saving medications, police killings not pursuant to a policy aimed specifically at those deaths, etc.) aren’t included.
The population of the United States at the end of the 20th century stood at about 280 million. Even using low numbers, we can be reasonably sure that in the 20th century, a number of human beings nearly equivalent to that entire population were murdered by governments worldwide.
My personal guess for actual deaths inflicted by Westphalian nation-statism in the 20th century, when we add in those accidental and incidental deaths, is at least twice Rummel’s number, and probably more. For the sake of argument, let’s call it 600 million. That’s 1/10th of the world’s population as of 2000.
That, fellow humans, is an epidemic on a global scale unlike anything seen since the Black Death of the Middle Ages.
When smallpox, polio, tuberculosis or flu kill millions, our response is to isolate or quarantine their carriers, develop treatments and vaccines, and do our damnedest to eradicate those diseases. We don’t waste our time worrying about what new diseases may pop up or what might follow a cure; we deal with that which afflicts us first and foremost.
But when anarchists point out the deadly nature of the state, which routinely and predictably kills people in numbers on the same scale as any of those aforementioned scourges, its defenders clasp the disease to their breasts and wail that they just don’t know what we’d do without it.
Well, I know what most of us would do without it: We’d live. And personally I think living is better than dying. How about you?
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, O Estado é uma Epidemia.
Citations to this article:
- Thomas L. Knapp, The State is an Epidemic, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Nation, 04/30/12




When a Statist shoot you in the face it's "Democide", when a private person shoots you in the face then it's "just stuff that happens". By such correllation it can be concluded that government is force for good because in the 20th century the world population increased sixfold whereas the laissez-faire 1800's saw the population simply double.
Gil, Who, pray tell, would you shoot in the.face? And how long, pray tell, do you suppose those violent aggressors would be violent in a system maintained by private arbiters and self defense?
How have "government killed millions"? What happened to rejecting the Nuremberg Defence? History has shown the masses supported the leaders and willing committed atrocities and were not "brainwashed" in the slightest. Instead people were angry and wanted blood while the leaders gave them permission and simply stood back and watched.
Gil,
This is an op-ed piece of limited length, so only so I can only cover so many facets of any given topic in it. One facet I chose to leave out is the agency issue, but suffice it to say that a gang is its members.
Thomas, I believe your answer to this statist could be improved on. For one thing, "it" certainly could get worse. I doubt it, but the possibility exists. Second, most people don't look at these deaths at all. They look at their own personal experience. Most people who can think are not dead yet, heh. Most of them have pretty OK lives. Sure, government steals some of their money, but they get to use the rest. Until the state actually tramples on one of their family or close associates, or kills one of them, they are not going to get that exercised about the state. "Better the devil you know, than the one you don't." This is not unreasonable.
I believe the better answer to someone who questions the possibility of anarchy is, "Let me try it." Tell them you have no interest in getting rid of government FOR THEM. If they want it, they should have it. Tell them you just want to be left alone, to try anarchy yourself or with your friends. If it doesn't work out, that is your problem, not theirs. Most people will agree to this. It is non-threatening to them, and they may even anticipate getting to say "I told you so."
Anarchists should stop trying to prosyletize, and concentrate on escaping the state for themselves.
Paul,
The way I see it, there are rooms for all kinds of personal approaches, and for all kinds of arguments.
I guess I could be biased in favor of prosyletization, seeing as how that's pretty much my career (not just here at C4SS, but in general). I certainly have no problem with those who choose to "concentrate on escaping the state for themselves" rather than trying to convince others that it needs to be smashed, but I'm a writer, and this is what I choose to write about
the laissez-faire 1800's
lol