There Are No Stopping Points - Human Action and Political Change

The Utopian Critique

Critics often dismiss Anarcho-Capitalism as "utopian" - claiming that a stateless society will never exist, and therefore anarcho-capitalists are chasing impossible dreams.

But this critique fundamentally misunderstands what anarcho-capitalists are actually doing. We're not claiming that doing X and Y will create a perfect utopia where nothing bad ever happens. We're simply identifying government as a current major threat - a bad actor - and taking rational steps to mitigate that threat, the same way you'd deal with thieves, scammers, gangs, or pirates.

The argument fails on two fronts: historical precedent and logical consistency.

The Historical Precedent

Monarchy was once considered the natural order of society, divinely ordained and permanent. Today, it's relegated to ceremonial roles and tourist attractions. Slavery was woven into the fabric of human civilization for millennia, defended by philosophers and theologians alike. Today, it's nearly universally condemned.

What seemed impossible in one generation becomes reality in the next. The "utopian" dreams of abolitionists and republicans were eventually realized not because humanity reached some final destination, but because individuals consistently acted to improve their conditions despite obstacles.

The transition from monarchy to democracy, from slavery to freedom, from feudalism to Markets - these weren't inevitable historical arcs. They were the cumulative result of countless individuals taking steps, however small, to move from a state of uneasiness to easiness.

The Logic of Human Action

Consider man in the wilderness. He builds a fire to ward off predators. Is he now "safe"? No - rain can extinguish his flames. So he constructs a treehouse to escape ground threats and stay dry. Is he now "safe"? No - he needs food. So he hunts, but wild boars are dangerous. He sets traps instead.

Each improvement addresses a problem, but new challenges emerge. This is the nature of human action - there is no final state of perfect security or comfort. Man is constantly acting to move from uneasiness to easiness, from a less satisfactory state to a more satisfactory one.

Now introduce another human - a bad actor who wants to pillage your resources. You build defenses: walls, weapons, strategic positioning. You've improved your situation, but you're not invulnerable. Lightning could strike your treehouse. You build a second shelter, or seek a cave. You diversify your defenses.

At no point do you say, "I've improved my life enough. I'll accept this level of threat and stop acting to better my condition." That would be irrational. Human action doesn't have arbitrary stopping points.

The Consistency Principle

An anarcho-capitalist follows the same logic:

1. First, he secures his basic needs - food, shelter, immediate safety
2. Then, he establishes a base in a favorable location
3. Finally, he works to mitigate the negative effects of bad actors around him

These bad actors exist on a spectrum: petty thieves, scammers, organized crime, mafias, and yes - governments. The principle remains identical: identify threats to your well-being and act to minimize them.

You warn your neighbor about a scammer running a fake charity. You tell your friend to avoid a dangerous alley where muggers lurk. You take precautions against gangs and organized crime. And you take steps to minimize government interference in your life.

These are all the same category of action: identifying bad actors and mitigating their threats. There is no logical distinction that says, "Protect yourself from all these threats, but when it comes to government, just accept it." Why would rational self-preservation suddenly become "utopian" when the threat happens to have a flag and a tax code?

The Slave's Choice

Consider a slave working in the brutal conditions of a French Caribbean colony. He learns that English colonies, while still maintaining the evil institution of slavery, treat their slaves with marginally better conditions. Should he be faulted for trying to escape to an English colony? Would anyone mock him for seeking improvement despite not being able to abolish slavery entirely?

Of course not. We recognize his actions as rational attempts to improve his condition within his constraints. He cannot single-handedly end slavery, but he can take steps to improve his immediate situation. He's not claiming that moving to an English colony will create a utopia - he's simply mitigating a current threat as best he can.

The same applies to anyone seeking to minimize government interference in their life. Moving to a country with lower Taxation, using Bitcoin to preserve wealth, employing legal structures to protect assets, advocating for free markets - these are all rational actions to mitigate a current threat.

We're not claiming these actions will create a perfect ancapistan. We're doing what any rational person does when facing a bad actor: we adapt, we protect ourselves, we minimize the damage where we can. Whether that's warning someone about a scammer or using Bitcoin to preserve wealth from government money printing - it's the same principle.

The Journey, Not the Destination

Why do you save money? Perhaps $20,000 feels sufficient for emergencies when you're single. But then you have a family, and suddenly $100,000 seems more appropriate. Did you "finish" saving at $20,000? No - your circumstances changed, and your actions adapted.

Why do you go to school? To get a particular job. Why develop a skill? To increase your market value. Why exercise? To improve health. Why read? To expand knowledge.

All of these are actions toward goals that have no final endpoint. You never reach a state where you say, "I am now perfectly educated, perfectly skilled, perfectly healthy, perfectly knowledgeable." You continue acting to improve as long as you're alive.

Dealing with threats follows the same pattern. You don't reach a state where you're perfectly safe from all bad actors and then stop acting. You continuously identify threats and take steps to mitigate them. Government happens to be one of the biggest current threats to most people's well-being - it taxes their income, inflates their savings, regulates their businesses, and restricts their freedom.

Anarcho-capitalists aren't claiming that invoking the NAP will make government magically disappear and create utopia. We're simply pointing out an obvious bad actor and taking rational steps to protect ourselves - the same way you'd warn a neighbor about a scammer or avoid a dangerous alley. Bad things will still exist in any society. We're just identifying the current major obstacles to human flourishing and acting accordingly.

The Arbitrary Line

The critic who calls anarcho-capitalism "utopian" must answer: where is the stopping point?

Should you protect your property from thieves? Yes. Should you avoid areas controlled by dangerous gangs? Yes. Should you warn others about scammers? Yes. Should you take steps to minimize government interference in your life? Apparently not - that's "utopian."

But why? What's the principled distinction? All of these are bad actors who threaten your well-being. All of them use force or fraud to take what you've earned. All of them impede your ability to live peacefully and prosper.

The only difference is that one bad actor has successfully convinced people it's legitimate. But legitimacy doesn't change the nature of the threat. Government taxes are still forced transfers of wealth. Government regulations still restrict peaceful behavior. Government inflation still destroys savings.

The line is arbitrary. The principle is identical: identify bad actors and take rational steps to mitigate their threats. Whether that bad actor is a street thief, a criminal gang, a scammer, or a government makes no difference to the principle.

Coping with Unchangeable Constraints

You cannot change the weather. You cannot eliminate natural disasters. You cannot make yourself immortal. These are constraints you must accept and work around.

But government is not weather. Taxation is not gravity. A gang of thieves is not a natural disaster. These are human-created threats that can be mitigated through rational action.

Yes, you might face obstacles you cannot personally overcome. The anarcho-capitalist recognizes he may not see a fully stateless society in his lifetime. But so what? The slave might not see abolition in his lifetime. Does that mean he shouldn't try to escape to better conditions? Does that mean he should just accept brutality because he can't single-handedly end the institution?

Of course not. You act where you can. You improve what you can. You take steps to protect yourself from identified threats. Whether you can completely eliminate the threat is irrelevant to whether you should try to mitigate it.

This is not utopianism. This is basic threat assessment and risk mitigation - the same rational behavior humans employ in every other area of life.

Conclusion

There are no stopping points in human action. Man continuously strives to improve his condition, to move from uneasiness to easiness, to mitigate threats and overcome obstacles. This applies to securing food, building shelter, warning about scammers, protecting against gangs, and yes - minimizing government interference.

The anarcho-capitalist is simply consistent in applying this principle. We're not claiming that ancapistan will magically appear or that utopia is achievable. Bad things will still happen. Threats will still exist. But government happens to be one of the biggest current threats to human flourishing, so we take rational steps to mitigate it.

You don't call someone "utopian" for warning their neighbor about a scammer. You don't call someone "utopian" for moving away from gang-controlled neighborhoods. You don't call someone "utopian" for protecting their property from thieves.

So why is it suddenly "utopian" to use Bitcoin to protect against government inflation? To move to countries with lower Taxation? To advocate for free markets? To point out that government is a bad actor that threatens peaceful people?

The question isn't whether a perfect stateless society will be achieved. The question is: will you act rationally to protect yourself from identified threats, or will you draw an arbitrary line at government and call it "utopian" to treat this particular bad actor the same way you treat all the others?

Monarchy fell. Slavery ended. Central planning collapsed. Each seemed permanent until it wasn't. But even if you believe government will exist forever, that doesn't mean you stop taking steps to minimize its harm to your life.

Human action has no stopping points. Only humans who choose to stop acting.