Anti-statist ideas face serious objections. Taking them seriously is the best way to understand both the critics and the replies anarchists and libertarians have developed.

Hobbes's warning

Thomas Hobbes, writing in Leviathan (1651) after the English Civil War, argued that without a common power to keep them in awe, people would live in a condition of war, “every man against every man.” In that condition there would be no industry, no arts, no society, and the life of man would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Only a strong sovereign, he concluded, could secure peace.

Replies. Kropotkin argued that Hobbes ignored the deep human capacity for cooperation. Anarchists also point out that states remain in a Hobbesian condition with one another, and that the wars and mass killings of the twentieth century were carried out mainly by states. Locke had already pictured a state of nature that was inconvenient rather than hellish.

Public goods and collective action

Economists define a public good as one that is hard to keep non-payers from enjoying, and that one person's use does not use up for others. National defense, flood control and clean air are standard examples. The difficulty is the free-rider problem: each person has reason to let others pay for a shared benefit, so too little gets provided. In The Logic of Collective Action (1965), Mancur Olson argued that large groups rarely act for their common interest unless members are compelled or given separate personal incentives. Taxation, critics say, is how societies solve this.

Replies. Ronald Coase's 1974 essay on lighthouses, a textbook public good, found that British lighthouses were long funded by fees charged to ships at ports rather than from general taxes, though under a government-backed system. Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 2009, documented many communities that manage shared resources such as fisheries, forests and irrigation well without either state control or private ownership. Libertarians who accept a minimal state agree that defense may need tax funding, but deny that this justifies much more.

Who protects the weak?

Critics ask what happens to people who cannot pay for protection or who are unpopular. In a market for security, protection might flow to those who can pay, leaving the poor exposed. In a community of assemblies, an unpopular minority might face majority tyranny or local strongmen. Children and people with severe disabilities depend on others' goodwill.

Replies. Anarchists answer that states have often persecuted minorities and neglected the poor, and that mutual aid networks and charity can fill the gaps. Left anarchists add that this is exactly why material equality matters. Minimal-state libertarians reply that their state protects the rights of everyone equally.

Historical failures

Critics note that anarchist societies have been rare and short-lived: the Paris Commune was crushed, the anarchist movement in Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno was destroyed by the Red Army by 1921, and Spain's collectives did not survive the war. Some critics point to Somalia after its government collapsed in 1991 as a warning; a few economists replied that on some measures conditions there did not worsen compared with the brutal regime before, a claim others dispute.

Replies. Anarchists answer that their experiments were mostly destroyed by outside armies rather than by internal collapse, and that many states also fail. Critics respond that the ability to defend itself is part of what any social order must provide.

Worked example: the river town's flood wall

Picture a river town with no government. Floods threaten everyone, and a flood wall would protect the whole town. A wall is a classic public good: once it is built, it protects people who did not pay, and protecting one house does not reduce protection for the next.

The free-rider problem. Each household reasons that if enough others pay, the wall gets built anyway, so it can save its money. If everyone thinks this way, the wall is never built. A Hobbesian critic says this is why a power able to compel payment is needed.

An anarchist communist proposal. A town assembly discusses the danger and households pledge labor and materials. Social pressure and mutual aid make most people contribute, as in Ostrom's irrigation communities. The risk: a few families refuse, and resentment grows.

An anarcho-capitalist proposal. An entrepreneur offers an assurance contract: each household pledges money, but pledges are collected only if enough people sign to fund the whole wall. This reduces the fear of paying for nothing. Alternatively, an insurance company that would pay flood claims might fund the wall itself, because it saves the company money.

Who protects the weak? The poorest families live closest to the river. If they cannot pledge, will the wall be built around their homes? An honest analysis notes that each proposal can work in some conditions and fail in others. Many real societies use a mix of voluntary cooperation and taxation, and the debate is often about where to draw that line.