The way I see it, libertarian is a direction on the graph, anarchy is an endpoint. Since I think the government should be smaller, I'm libertarian. Since my ideal society has no government, I'm an anarchist too.

As to politicians, I think even Trump likely isn't that concerned with liberty. He knows his audience though, and plays the role of the hero.

There's a few different possibilities. Even if you can't think of one yourself though, government is the threat and use of force and therefore needs to be justified; much like atheism, the burden of proof lies with those who intend to justify the use of armed enforcers cough Law Enforcement Officers. So if anyone challenges you on the solution you think of, it's best to mention that.

That said, there are a couple things I've thought of that would encourage spontaneous order: firstly, with everyone armed, you don't want to screw with someone because you never know if they'll kill you before you have a chance to react. Secondly, since you don't want a ridiculously long feud like that the government failed to prevent between the Hatfields and McCoys (and arguably may have even caused, though I don't feel like getting into that right now), you make sure any family member who wrongs someone else goes to binding third-party arbitration like there already is between cities and unions.

And not to be a cultist, but Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged that violence is never a profitable option for reasonable men, and gave realistic examples on top of the old axiom that violence is not the answer. By the time people are generally reasonable enough to recognize the unnecessary and oppressive nature of government, they will hopefully also be reasonable enough not to commit violence, but even if they did, government is far from the only recourse for victims.

@Jnutter819 Who is going to hold the 'binding third-party' accountable? If everyone is walking around with guns as you seem to advocate it seems to me that there will be those who will always take take offence easily and shoot the person whose words that they disagree with

@ASTRALMAX Who holds the government accountable? It's been in violation of the second amendment for quite a long time. Voting is not nearly enough when they control whom you can vote for, when, and how well advertised they will be. I assume you've heard of gerrymandering?

There will be competition between arbitrators (in fact, there already is, though there are fewer than there would be if such people weren't drawn to the government), so they will depend upon their reputations. Basically, you agree on an arbitrator with a good reputation and share the cost of consulting him so neither of you has to risk combat. If you've taken any martial arts or anything, one of the first rules is don't challenge an unknown opponent because they may beat you, so it's not worth your life if you can avoid it.

As for people shooting those whose words they disagree with, who would want to do business with them? How would they avoid revenge by a family member or friend? Again, they'd eventually bite off more than they could chew. In fact, that's all that stops them now; they know someone will stop them by force if they don't restrain themselves. The fact that it might not be a monopolistic entity that does so makes it no less problematic for them.

@Jnutter819 I think that it almost goes without saying that not everyone is going to have your level of education and ability to reason. The following is link to gun related deaths and I can see from the list, near the bottom, the US ranks high. [en.wikipedia.org]

I have heard it said that those with the most money often have justice dispensed in their favour by exhausting the financial resources of those with whom they are in dispute.

@ASTRALMAX As to gun deaths, guns stop far more crime than they are used in (I think the WHO estimated 2 million minimum per year, and that doesn't count unreported cases, like where brandishing it alone is enough). Most violent gun deaths are gang-related or self defense, and it's obvious what causes gangs: prohibition.

And as to that second option, that's how the Fed's legal system works yeah. If the two parties just go to a neutral arbitrator, it's less expensive by far.

@ASTRALMAX As to education level and logic skills, when there's neither God nor government to guilt people into being parents when they aren't ready, most parents will be good parents. When the first safety net they hit on the way to financial ruin is their family, their family will take far more care in ensuring they get back on their feet. The same goes for later safety nets should they hit them, like friends and the charity of strangers.

I think those of us who couldn't protect ourselves would find friends or family to protect use without need of a government to replace parents. Also, any government that governs at all governs more than one that doesn't exist.

@Jnutter819 The 19th Century Liberal Economists misappropriated Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory to cloak what would have otherwise been deemed very reprehensible economic practice. Aided and abetted by Herbert Spencer, an autodidact and misogynist who was a staunch opponent of female suffrage. I would not class any of the above mentioned as benefactors of mankind but rather they belong with the robber barons of that era.

@ASTRALMAX What does that have to do with the government basically being a (bad) parent to everybody? Are you somehow trying to cast aspersions on the idea that good parents don't destroy their children's lives for experimenting with psychoactive substances? Or that maybe adults don't need parents anymore and that's what makes them adults? Maybe you're just mentioning an interesting but of history that has nothing to do with me.

Or maybe you're just trying to indicate me as guilty by (distant) association to other white people or something. Let me tell you, original sin is one of the first things I questioned in religion, and it makes no more sense in another form. Besides, the quality of an idea is not determined by the character of those who hold it. The fact that Nazis believed in gravity doesn't mean gravity is fake.

Oh, and if it isn't clear, I'm a humanitarian and an egalitarian. I will freely volunteer my time and money for worthy causes without any need of government to force me, and I don't think demographics determine someone's character.

@Jnutter819 With regard to psychoactive substances or drugs I will say that I am in agreement with Thomas Szasz who said: " A government cannot legalize an act it can either leave it alone or make it illegal. Legalization implies a relationship between a superior and an inferior between a parent and a child. The parentilization of authority and the infantilization of everybody else".

@ASTRALMAX That I most definitely agree with. And I favor leaving it alone.

@Jnutter819 I read more than 18 volumes of the works of the late Dr. Thomas Szasz over a period of several years and I have to say that I admire his logic.

With regard to ' authority ' Richard Dawkins said that there is no authority in science because everyone's work is under constant peer review. That being the case I regard it as the hallmark and most distinctive feature that differentiates it from religions whose views have not changed since their inception.

I think we'll find even those unnecessary (and unjustified) once we've taken care of the rest of the government, but maybe I'll be proven wrong. I'd love to see the evidence that they're necessary just as much as I'd like to see the proof that there is actually a specific god.

Even if we need people whose job is enforcing law and order, I don't think a monopoly on that service is advisable any more than any other monopoly. Ever heard of neighborhood private security?

@Jnutter819 With anarchy, there is no protection of individual rights. Who is the final arbiter? It would be one private security agency against another and the one with the biggest guns will win -- where is the justice in that? And, what if you use one private security agency, your next door neighbor uses another agency, and you have a dispute? Again, the agency with the biggest guns wins.

@sfvpool Do you think the government protects people's rights? Gun control, the drug war, extortion, etc. suggest otherwise.

Arbiters should be individuals surviving on their reputation, not someone who can pass the buck to some higher (more corrupt) authority.

Private security companies wouldn't fight each other, the perpetrator would be encouraged to go to arbitration. They wouldn't risk such an expense and loss of face as open combat would cause.