Originally Posted by Pluto

Anarchism presumes that humans are inherently good and will get along and behave well without government. Anarchism is optimistic about human nature. I think most humans are inherently good, but their inherent goodness won't protect them from the remainder who aren't. Anarchism might leave the individual prey to anyone who is stronger, which will lead to formation of gangs for self-protection, which will in turn lead to the formation of states.

Under anarchy, it is conceivable that e.g. a brutal gang might use its superior might to coerce everyone else to do as they wish. With nothing more powerful than the gang, there would (definitionally) be nothing to stop them. But how does this differ from what we have now? Governments rule because they have the might to maintain their power; in short, because there is no superior agency to restrain them.

This argument is confused on several levels. First, it covertly defines anarchy as unrestrained rule of the strongest, which is hardly what most anarchists have in mind.