25A028 "It Would Never Work!" by Jim Davies, 7/15/2025

You spend an hour, patiently explaining the merits of a society without government to an apparently intelligent friend, providing reasonable answers to all his objections, until his supply runs out. Then he says "Well, it sounds great but it couldn't possibly work; it's utopian."

That's quite disheartening. It suggests that despite appearances he was not at all as intelligent, or at least not as open-minded, as he seemed. Haven't you encountered that? If not, you will! The effect of lifelong indoctrination at school, college, via TV and newspaper, is intense; to embrace the reasoning of a nobody who proposes a zero government society is just unacceptable. It violates everything he's learned. It would mean a whole bucketful of half-understood premises would need to be thown out. It's just too much. So call it utopia, an impossible dream. Perhaps that will cause the guy (that's you) to shut up.

But maybe there's an answer even to that ill-reasoned "objection."

The reason that utopian ideas cannot work in real life is that they are, or would be, unstable. Put one in place, and after a while it will break. As our objecting friend suggested, it will not work. It fails to fit its real-world environment, it's an incomplete theory only. Stability, or the alleged lack of it, is the key; if something has none, it's utopian. So let's see how stable have been the alternatives to a ZGS. In real life.

Monarchies can last a while, but ultimately fail, so they are unstable and therefore utopian. By "monarchy" is meant any society ruled by one person, an autocrat or dictator. For example, England was a monarchy from 1066 for 149 years, but in 1215 King John had to share his power with his aristocrats so he ceased to be absolute. Today the Kim dynasty in North Korea persists, but discontent is boiling. Russia had an autocracy until 1917, when it was violently overthrown. Hitler's 1,000-year Reich actually lasted 12. And so on; uneasy lie the heads that wear crowns, and "divine right" doesn't wash any longer.

Theocracy is a similar idea, and that can also last a while; but stability is lost when most of the ruled no longer believe in the God who allegedly appointed the ruler. It's still operating in Iran, because that change hasn't yet penetrated Islam; but it will. When it does, that too will show up as unstable, utopian - there, as in the West.

Democracy has been tried after those were revealed as bogus, and will persist in any society until voters realize they can vote themselves a free lunch. Then the rat race takes over; different groups, squabbling over who gets the biggest slice of a cake whose size shrinks as people play politics instead of engaging in productive work. It has therefore a built-in instability.

It's unstable and utopian for a second, more important reason - which applies to any and all systems of rule: it violates human nature. That nature is to own ourselves, individually, and therefore not to be ruled by anyone else - not even by 99% of those nearby. Voluntary co-operation and exchange are fine, because those don't involve ruling or being ruled; but not involuntary submission.

Since democratic rule is still rule, it doesn't fit and is therefore unstable - and hence utopian.

Anarchism - the absence of rule - is the one arrangement that is inherently stable, because it does fit human nature; each person runs his own life, his or her own way, and nobody else's. Therefore there is no resentment, no source of discord, discontent, complaint, arising from being compelled to do (or not do) something against one's will. Instability must have a cause; anarchism removes all known causes.

It is therefore the one alternative that is not utopian. He may still not admit it because his position comes not from reason but from prejudice, but our reluctant friend has had his accusation turned on its head.