What If There Were No Government?

Imagine you’re sitting in class, and someone says, “You have to do this because I’m in charge.” Maybe it’s a teacher, a parent, or the principal. Most of the time, you accept it. But have you ever stopped and thought: Why does being “in charge” give someone the right to tell me what to do? What if nobody had that right at all?

That’s the strange question that anarchists ask. Not about your classroom—about the whole country.

The Big Idea: No Rulers, No Rules?

When most people hear “anarchist,” they picture someone throwing a brick through a window or setting cars on fire. That’s not what anarchism is really about. The word comes from ancient Greek: an (meaning “without”) and arché (meaning “ruler” or “first principle”). Anarchy literally means “no ruler.”

But here’s where it gets interesting. Anarchists don’t just mean “no government.” They mean no unjustified authority—no person or institution that gets to boss you around just because they’re at the top of some pyramid. For anarchists, the question is: Does any government actually have the right to tell you what to do?

The answer, they say, is no. And they have some surprising reasons.

The Puzzle of Authority

Let’s start with something weird philosophers noticed. When a police officer tells you to stop, you usually stop. When a law says you can’t steal, most people don’t steal. But why? Is it just because you’re afraid of getting caught? Or do you actually have a duty to obey?

Philosophers call this “political obligation”—the idea that citizens have a moral duty to follow the law. Most people just assume this exists. But anarchists point out that nobody ever asked you if you wanted to be governed. You were born into a country, and suddenly you’re supposed to obey its rules. Did you ever sign a contract?

The philosopher Robert Paul Wolff pushed this puzzle hard. He argued that if you’re a responsible, thinking person, you have a duty to make your own decisions about right and wrong. That’s what “autonomy” means—governing yourself. But if the government tells you what to do, and you obey just because it’s the government, you’re giving up your autonomy. You’re letting someone else think for you.

Wolff concluded that no actual government can be legitimate—meaning no government has the right to command your obedience. This is called a priori anarchism. “A priori” is Latin for “before experience”—meaning Wolff thought you could figure this out just by thinking about it, without looking at any specific government.

The catch: Wolff admitted that a truly democratic government where everyone agreed on every decision could theoretically be legitimate. But he said that’s impossible in real life. So we’re stuck: we have a duty to think for ourselves, but we live under governments that expect us to obey.

But Maybe Authority Is Sometimes Okay?

Not all anarchists are as absolute as Wolff. Noam Chomsky, who is both a famous linguist and a political thinker, offered a different version. He said: authority should have to prove itself before we accept it.

Think about it this way. If a toddler is about to run into a busy street, you grab them. That’s legitimate authority—you’re preventing harm, and the toddler can’t make good decisions yet. But when a government tells grown adults what to do, the burden of proof should be on the government. The anarchist says: “Show me why you deserve to tell me what to do.” And Chomsky argues that most governments can’t meet that burden.

This is contingent anarchism. It doesn’t say all government is always bad. It says: in the real world, with all its inequality, corruption, and violence, actual governments almost never deserve our obedience. They could in theory, but they don’t in practice.

Different Ways of Saying “No”

Anarchists disagree about why government is illegitimate and about what to do about it.

Some anarchists focus on individual freedom. They’re called individualist anarchists. They think the most important thing is that each person gets to live their own life without being bossed around. Max Stirner, a 19th-century German philosopher, took this to an extreme. He said even belonging to a group or a movement is a kind of trap—you should be loyal to nothing except your own self-development. “Every state is a despotism,” he wrote.

Other anarchists focus on community and equality. These are socialist or communist anarchists. They think the problem isn’t just that government bosses you around—it’s that government protects rich people and lets them exploit everyone else. Peter Kropotkin, a Russian prince who became an anarchist, argued that people naturally want to cooperate and help each other. He thought that without government, we’d form voluntary communities where everyone shares resources. His slogan was “All for all.”

And then there are Christian anarchists. They take their cue from Jesus, who told his followers to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”—which they interpret as a grudging acceptance of government combined with the belief that true loyalty belongs to God, not the state. Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist, was a Christian anarchist. He thought Christians should refuse to participate in government at all—no voting, no military service, no swearing allegiance.

The Big Disagreement: Violence or Peace?

Here’s where things get tense—sometimes literally. Anarchists disagree sharply about whether violence is justified.

Pacifist anarchists like Tolstoy and Mohandas Gandhi (who admired Tolstoy) believed that you can’t create a free society using violent methods. If you’re trying to build a world without domination, you can’t dominate people along the way. The means have to match the ends.

But other anarchists argue that the state itself is violent—it has armies, police, prisons—and that violence in self-defense or revolution is necessary. Emma Goldman, a famous early 20th-century anarchist, thought that sabotage and property destruction could be ethical because they disrupted an unjust system. She wrote, “Every institution today rests on violence; our very atmosphere is saturated with it.”

This disagreement has never been resolved. And in some ways, it goes to the heart of the anarchist puzzle: if you’re against authority, how do you organize to get rid of it without creating new authority structures?

But Wouldn’t Anarchy Be Chaos?

This is the most common objection. It goes back to Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century philosopher. Hobbes thought that without government, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” People would be at each other’s throats all the time. Government is what keeps us safe.

Anarchists have several replies.

First, they point out that many governments are worse than anarchy would be. If you look at history, states have started wars, enslaved people, and run concentration camps. Is that really better than having no government?

Second, they argue that humans aren’t naturally selfish. Kropotkin wrote a whole book called Mutual Aid, where he showed that animals and humans cooperate naturally. Communities of people help each other all the time without being forced. Families don’t need a government to function—why would larger communities?

Third, some anarchists point to actual examples of stateless societies. Indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, and elsewhere have organized themselves for thousands of years without centralized states. This isn’t a romantic fantasy—it’s real history.

The “Toothless” Problem

Here’s a final puzzle that anarchists wrestle with. If you decide that no government is legitimate, but you don’t actually do anything about it—you just think about it philosophically—are you really an anarchist? Some critics say philosophical anarchism is “toothless.” It lets people feel morally superior while doing nothing to change the world.

The anarchist might reply: thinking carefully about these questions is important too. Before you blow something up or refuse to pay taxes, you should know why. Philosophy helps clarify what you actually believe.

But the tension remains. Anarchism is a philosophy that seems to demand action—and yet thoughtful anarchists often disagree about what action to take.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

Anarchism isn’t a settled debate. Philosophers still argue about whether any government can be legitimate, whether we have a duty to obey, and what should replace the state if we get rid of it.

What anarchism does is force you to ask a question you might never have thought to ask: Why should I do what the government says? When you give an answer—“because it keeps us safe,” or “because we agreed to it,” or “because otherwise there’d be chaos”—you’ve started doing political philosophy. And the anarchist will push you: “Is that answer good enough?”

Even if you end up rejecting anarchism entirely, you’ll have to think harder about why you accept the government you live under. That’s what anarchists want: not necessarily to smash the state, but to make you think before you obey.

Key Terms

Term	What It Does in This Debate
Anarchy	The condition of having no ruler or governing authority
Political obligation	The supposed duty citizens have to obey the law
Autonomy	The ability to govern yourself and make your own decisions
Legitimate authority	Authority that has the right to command and expect obedience
A priori anarchism	The claim that no government can be legitimate, based on reasoning alone
Contingent anarchism	The claim that governments could be legitimate but in practice aren’t
Direct action	Political action taken outside normal government channels (protests, boycotts, etc.)
Mutual aid	Voluntary cooperation and help among people, without government forcing it

Key People

Robert Paul Wolff – An American philosopher who argued that legitimate government is impossible because it conflicts with our duty to think for ourselves.
Noam Chomsky – A linguist and political thinker who argued that authority must prove itself, and most governments can’t.
Peter Kropotkin – A Russian prince turned anarchist who believed humans naturally cooperate and could organize society without government.
Emma Goldman – A Lithuanian-born American anarchist who advocated for direct action and sometimes violence against the state.
Leo Tolstoy – The Russian novelist who became a Christian anarchist and argued that Christians should refuse to participate in government.
Max Stirner – A German philosopher who took individualism to an extreme, arguing that loyalty to anything outside yourself is a trap.

Things to Think About

If you could design a society with no government, how would you handle disputes? What if two people both claim the same piece of land or the same resources?
Wolff says you have a duty to think for yourself and not just obey. But what about laws you agree with—like laws against murder? Do you obey those because you want to, or because the government tells you to? Does it matter?
Chomsky says authority should have to prove itself. Can you think of any authority—a parent, a teacher, a coach—that has met that burden of proof? What made it legitimate?
The pacifist anarchist says violence can never be justified in creating a free society. The revolutionary says sometimes it’s necessary. Who do you think is right, and why?

Where This Shows Up

Student councils and school rules – Are student governments legitimate? Do they have real authority, or just pretend authority? Could a school be run entirely by student consensus without teachers or principals?
Online communities – Reddit, Discord servers, and Minecraft servers have moderators and rules. Sometimes these are democratic, sometimes dictatorships. Which ones work best?
Protest movements – When people refuse to follow laws they consider unjust (like segregation laws or draft laws), they’re acting on anarchist ideas about when obedience is required.
Mutual aid networks – During disasters, neighbors often help each other without waiting for the government. That’s anarchism in practice.