Argument from Stability

Okay, as often does, this thought came to me in my morning shower. For some reason, this seems to be a hotbed for thinking about Market Anarchy for me.

Anyhow, I was thinking about the frequent argument we here about how anarchy is inherently unstable and will just lead to another government. I'm dubbing this the argument from stability, which posits that government provides stability and thus is the preferred solution.

Now I'm not going to go down the usual route of discussing the ways in which anarchy is a situation unfavorable to the rise of one corporation through pure brute force. It's been discussed many places many times, and while I might delve into it here, I'm not going to do it now. No, instead I want tackle a more fundamental part of the problem.

Now at this point I'm going to admit that I don't, in principle, have any qualm with governments existing, so long as all members have voluntarily decided to participate and abide by this decision making process and are not trying to force it outside the system. Undoubtedly democratic processes will continue into anarchy within smaller bodies, like business executive boards, non-profit charities, etc, and we don't expect these to turn the guns outward. But let's say some people do want to maintain a minarchist government, voluntarily choosing to pay a yearly fee for their system of protection and justice. So long as they don't point the guns inward to collect the funds and people can opt out at any time, there's no problem with this.

But the existence of voluntary governments in anarchy (ironic, eh?) will certainly highlight the argument from stability in the minds of statists as an obvious death-blow to free market anarchy. I can hear them now, "SEE! You even admit that governments will become prominent again! Surely one of them will decide to opt for power and conquest, and we'll be back to square one". And now comes my profound answer: "So what?"

The argument from stability is based on the premise that a stable system is better than an unstable one, without referring at all to the characteristics of the systems in question. Totalitarianism is very stable - leaders often rule for life, and conditions, while bad, can remain static for long periods of time. Anarchy, on the other hand, might be unstable, but it is also most conducive to freedom. We can also see from the past that minarchy is unstable (how else did America become the sprawling monster it is today?), but that doesn't make it inferior to dictatorship! Would anyone in their right mind argue that it is better to live under a stable despotic regime or a system that has a disposition for breaking apart and needing to start anew, but where people are free? Few, I'm sure.
If we need to fight for our freedom every decade or two in order to maintain it from those that would take it from us, so what? Are you really willing to give up control of your life just so that you can have a status quo that's never in threat? It is here that I will pay the obligatory homage to Jefferson:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

I don't think we ought to make our decisions based on what is easiest, but on what is right. I don't care if anarchy is somewhat unstable. I'm going to help put in place countermeasures against the rise of a tyrant or rogue, and I'm sure those who love freedom and their independence won't stand for it either. And if some behemoth should arise out of anarchy trying to impose its will, then we'll stand against and fight it off.