I listened to Michael Malice (whom I love) and he went down the path of private militia and how citicens could organize themselves to defend their communities, he cited quite a few examples in Mexico, South Africa and other fail estates.

He then went on to describe how bigger militias will take over towns, creating snow-crash like societies until the biggest meaniest one will create a country to defend agains something similar from abroad.

A very logical conclusion (better explained by him than me sorry!) but that was a point in favor of anarchy, which I find odd because I interpret it as a point against it.

My personal take is that, anarchy assumes people WOULD move to better jurisdictions, but the bast mayority CAN/WON'T move. And the locals will not just let outsiders in. Which makes the whole thing non-viable.

But I pray to see the day where an anarchist society thrives and becomes better than current ones. We will see.

BTW this is a fucking smart question and I am no expert. Thanks for posting it.

"Worst argument" as in bad argument or as in difficult to argue against?

(Likely not the worst I've come across, but this sprung to mind)

“But who would build the roads?”