|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 11:||Line 11:|
|Related: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy||Nirvana fallacy on Wikipedia]].||Related: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy|Nirvana fallacy on Wikipedia]].|
Anarchy is bad because there will still be criminals (generalization).
There are criminals today; there is slavery and a sex trade even in "free" countries. When a free society (even a hypothetical one) is compared to a statist one, the comparison should be to what is (or, in the hypothetical, what is likely, which is arguable—and frequently argued). While we expect that a voluntaryist society will be better than a statist one in many ways, it does not fail merely because it falls short of someone's utopia. (DBR)
In my limited experience, a meta-fallacy of all critiques of anarchy (and indeed, any aspect of individualism or "alternative") is inconsistent bar setting—of attempting to hold the alternative up to a standard the incumbent cannot meet. (ME)
Related: Nirvana fallacy on Wikipedia.