[quote=@Normie]
Oh I don't think anarchy would get you the same form of government after the power vacuum is filled, I'm saying it would get you a much worse one (again, because this is what happened in history--the vast majority of states started off as total autocracies and have taken millenia to develop forward to where they are now, and in many parts of the world, they're still unaccountable autocracies today). You are not going to be able to go from anarchy straight to a stable liberal democracy, those norms and institutions take generations to build up and become embedded into society.

Governments did used to be much smaller and if someone is saying they have grown too large, I actually totally agree. But "we need smaller government" is a totally different viewpoint than "we need no government." Governments remain necessary for purposes of national defense, enforcement of property rights, and other basic functions that ensure a free society. Anyone who thinks they aren't simply isn't properly conceptualizing what a government is. Whatever agent you put in place to fulfill those functions will end up being your government, whether you choose to call it one or not.
[/quote]

Basically agree with that 100%. (although I wouldn't immediately say anarchic practices like revolution or overthrowing a corrupt government or regime, is inherently going to lead to worse results than you started. Though I'm aware that's has been the case many times before.) But especially how that particular article portrays his arguments, it's almost parallel to socialism arguments.

https://mises.org/library/trouble-socialist-anarchism I'd probably use this to point out the problems with the concept of socialist anarchy.