Anarchism is self-defeating

You'll rarely see a better critique of the nonsense of anarchism than this one, from Harry Binswanger. "Competition," says Harry, "is an economic, not a political, concept; it refers to the voluntary exchange of values, not to the exchange of gunfire."

Read more of this common sense here: Harry Binswanger: Anarchism vs Objectivism. [Hat tip Thomas Lee]

See also: Cue Card Libertarianism: Anarchy

UPDATE 1: A commenter at SOLO has conveniently summarised the main points covered in just 1500 words:

1. why government must have a monopoly of force;
2. the need for a philosophy of law to spell out details of objective justice;
3. private force iss a violation of objective justice;
4. the self-defence/emergency exception;
5. private guards;
6. what 'competing' would mean in practice;
7. How anarchism is 'the rule of whim';
8. how varying notions proposed for 'just retaliation' under anarchism would result in rights violations;
9. the inescapability of disputes over rights in whatever anarchist system is initially set up;
10. the stolen concept of a 'market' in force;
11. the 'binding arbitration' fallacy;
12. defense agency force is still force suppressing 'competition';
13. the denial of the need for objectivity and proof in regard to force.

As the commenter says, "the only criticism of the essay would be ... that he lumps together all 'libertarians' as though they were anarchists."

UPDATE 2: A good debate on this still continuing at SOLO. Jump in.