The author seems to be a libertarian, not an anarchist. If he has any sympathy for anarchism, it seems to be for the philosophical kind [1] rather than the prac

The author seems to be a libertarian, not an anarchist. If he has any sympathy for anarchism, it seems to be for the philosophical kind [1] rather than the practical kind that you say is impossible. Or perhaps his position might be closest to the "natural duty" argument for political obligation [2], which isn't all that far off from philosophical anarchism anyway. The central premise of both philosophical anarchism and the natural duty argument is that governments have no legitimacy whatsoever by default, and only gain legitimacy to the extent that they help bring about beneficial consequences. The two theories differ in block size. Philosophical anarchism only acknowledges the value of individual pieces of law (if at all) that they think are beneficial, whereas the natural duty folks are more willing to give their blessing to entire systems of government in a broad brush. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/#NatDut http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/#NatD...