The state can be defined as a method of organizing society, in which a small body of people impose aggressive force upon any people living in its specified borders regardless of consent, usually in the form of mandatory payments (taxation), even for unwanted services, and the imposition of law by means of violence. Most would agree that the state is no more than a “necessary evil:” one that is not ideal in existing but “must” exist to a small degree (since aggression is not preferable unless it serves a seemingly necessary purpose).
The only logical alternative to the state is anarchism, simply defined as a society without rulers characterized by the absence of all unjust hierarchies: a lack of a state. Under anarchism, all statist associations which employ violence without consent are replaced with free associations maintained by direct contract rather than the imposition of aggression upon any within the state’s borders.
Anarchy is a viable alternative to statism as it consists of the following aspects that serve as solutions to the disadvantages of statism:
1. Decentralized: anarchist societies must be decentralized since the legitimacy of free associations is derived from the direct consent of the people that choose to live under them. Since the state relies on institutional coercion, all action under it must be centralized. Decentralization, however, is a far superior method of organizing society compared to the centralized state. Decentralized free associations, since they focus on a far smaller body of people, can respond to threats and issues faced by their communities with greater efficiency. In addition, decentralization allows people to play a much greater part in the organization of society since free associations would be both smaller and more local.
2. Consensual: the premise of the state is fundamentally flawed because it supposes that any people in a given area must submit to the state’s rule or else be punished. In a society without rulers people choose the free association that they organize themselves within, which serves to protect utilitarian well-being, eliminate coercion in government, and fulfill the individual’s fundamental right to self-determination and autonomy.
3. Peaceful: unlike the state, which imposes taxes by means of coercion, free associations support themselves fully off of consensual contributions by their people. If one wishes to gain the benefits of a free association, such as mutual aid and defense networks, collective bargaining, or community marketplaces with division of labor, a contract can be enacted in which the individual consents to contribute to the free association in exchange for these services. While the state relies on aggression to fund itself, anarchist groups rely purely on the consent of participants, which reduces violence.
4. Horizontal: anarchist societies are structured in such a way that, while the opportunity of the individual to achieve is without limits, no one is entitled to gain authority or exploit their fellow members in a free association. Free associations are structured cooperatively, meaning that they function less as a collective group with a single identity but more as a group of individuals cooperating together. The state structures itself so that some people may arise to positions of power in which it is acceptable to impose violence on other people, but in an anarchist society this opportunity to exploit ceases to exist. Anarchy is positive in the way that unlike the state, it does not grant the privilege of dominance to the few to oppress the many, but it maintains that the individual should be free from all hierarchical coercion to truly be able to pursue freedom. Lastly, since it is horizontal, free associations do not have present the cutthroat spirit of domination and control shared by those attempting to achieve political or economic power over other sin the present, meaning that crime and violence against others in the pursuit of personal gain is far less likely to occur under an anarchist free association, further contributing to the peaceful intentions outlined in the latter point.